KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 209–214 | Cite as

Responsible Intelligent Systems

The REINS Project
Research Project


The 2013 ERC-consolidator project “Responsible Intelligent Systems” proposes to develop a formal framework for automating responsibility, liability and risk checking for intelligent systems. The goal is to answer three central questions, corresponding to three sub-projects of the proposal: (1) What are suitable formal logical representation formalisms for knowledge of agentive responsibility in action, interaction and joint action? (2) How can we formally reason about the evaluation of grades of responsibility and risks relative to normative systems? (3) How can we perform computational checks of responsibilities in complex intelligent systems interacting with human agents? To answer the first two questions, we will design logical specification languages for collective responsibilities and for probability-based graded responsibilities, relative to normative systems. To answer the third question, we will design suitable translations to related logical formalisms, for which optimised model checkers and theorem provers exist. All three answers will contribute to the central goal of the project as a whole: designing the blueprints for a formal responsibility checking system. To reach that goal the project will combine insights from three disciplines: philosophy, legal theory and computer science.


Logics of agency Normative systems Risk and liability Knowledge representation 


  1. 1.
    Alur R, Henzinger T, Kupferman O (2002) Alternating-time temporal logic. J ACM 49(5):672–713CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur R, Henzinger TA, Mang F, Qadeer S, Rajamani SK, Tasiran S (1998) Mocha: modularity in model checking. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on computer-aided verification (CAV 1998), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1427. Springer, New York, pp 521–525Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier C, Katoen JP (2008) Principles of model checking. MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belnap N, Perloff M, Xu M (2001) Facing the future: agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bianco A, de Alfaro L (1995) Model checking of probabilistic and nondeterministic systems. In: Thiagarajan P (ed) Proceedings of 15th conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science (FSTTCS ’95), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1026. Springer, Berlin, pp 499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broersen J (2011) Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. J Appl Logic 9(2):127–152CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broersen J (2011) Modeling attempt and action failure in probabilistic stit logic. In: Walsh T (ed) Proceedings of twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2011). IJCAI, pp 792–797Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broersen J (2012) Three points of disagreement with Gideon Yaffe on attempts. Jurisprudence 3(2):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broersen J, Herzig A, Troquard N (2006) Embedding alternating-time temporal logic in strategic STIT logic of agency. J Logic Comput 16(5):559–578CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopra S, White LF (2011) A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edsall TB (2008) Man versus machine. Huffington Post.
  12. 12.
    Fagin R, Halpern JY, Moses Y, Vardi MY (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. The MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goranko V, Jamroga W (2004) Comparing semantics of logics for multi-agent systems. Synthese 139(2):241–280CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grossi D, Royakkers LMM, Dignum F (2007) Organizational structure and responsibility. Artif Intell Law 15(3):223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haenni R, Romeijn JW, Wheeler G, Williamson J (2011) Probabilistic logics and probabilistic networks., Synthese LibrarySpringer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Halpern JY (2006) Causality, responsibility, and blame: a structural-model approach. In: Proceedings of third international conference on the quantative evaluation of systems, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hart H, Honoré T (1985) Causation in the law. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horty JF (2001) Agency and deontic logic. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kwiatkowska M, Norman G, Parker D (2011) Prism 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on computer aided verification (CAV ’11), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6806. Springer, Berlin, pp 585–591Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap—ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medina J (2011) Human error investigated in california blackout’s spread to six million. New York Times.
  22. 22.
    Moore M (2009) An essay in law, morals and metaphysics. In: Causation and responsibility. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nilsson NJ (1986) Probabilistic logic. Artif Intell 28(1):71–87CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pauly M (2002) A modal logic for coalitional power in games. J Logic Comput 12(1):149–166CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rushby J (2001) Theorem proving for verification. In: Cassez F, Jard C, Rozoy B, Ryan MD (eds) Modeling and verification of parallel processes, chap. Theorem proving for verification. Springer, New York, pp 39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wright GV (1951) Deontic logic. Mind 60:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations