Skip to main content

Responsible Intelligent Systems

The REINS 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Alur R, Henzinger T, Kupferman O (2002) Alternating-time temporal logic. J ACM 49(5):672–713

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 521–525

  3. Baier C, Katoen JP (2008) Principles of model checking. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Belnap N, Perloff M, Xu M (2001) Facing the future: agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  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 499–513

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Broersen J (2011) Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. J Appl Logic 9(2):127–152

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 792–797

  8. Broersen J (2012) Three points of disagreement with Gideon Yaffe on attempts. Jurisprudence 3(2):465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Broersen J, Herzig A, Troquard N (2006) Embedding alternating-time temporal logic in strategic STIT logic of agency. J Logic Comput 16(5):559–578

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Chopra S, White LF (2011) A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. University of Michigan Press, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  11. Edsall TB (2008) Man versus machine. Huffington Post.

  12. Fagin R, Halpern JY, Moses Y, Vardi MY (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Goranko V, Jamroga W (2004) Comparing semantics of logics for multi-agent systems. Synthese 139(2):241–280

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Grossi D, Royakkers LMM, Dignum F (2007) Organizational structure and responsibility. Artif Intell Law 15(3):223–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Haenni R, Romeijn JW, Wheeler G, Williamson J (2011) Probabilistic logics and probabilistic networks., Synthese LibrarySpringer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 3–6

  17. Hart H, Honoré T (1985) Causation in the law. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Horty JF (2001) Agency and deontic logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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 585–591

  20. Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap—ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Medina J (2011) Human error investigated in california blackout’s spread to six million. New York Times.

  22. Moore M (2009) An essay in law, morals and metaphysics. In: Causation and responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  23. Nilsson NJ (1986) Probabilistic logic. Artif Intell 28(1):71–87

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Pauly M (2002) A modal logic for coalitional power in games. J Logic Comput 12(1):149–166

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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 39–57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Wright GV (1951) Deontic logic. Mind 60:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Broersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broersen, J. Responsible Intelligent Systems. Künstl Intell 28, 209–214 (2014).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Logics of agency
  • Normative systems
  • Risk and liability
  • Knowledge representation