Abstract
Artificial intelligence has been increasing the autonomy of man-made artefacts such as software agents, self-driving vehicles and military drones. This increase in autonomy together with the ubiquity and impact of such artefacts in our daily lives have raised many concerns in society. Initiatives such as transparent and ethical AI aim to allay fears of a “free for all” future where amoral technology (or technology amorally designed) will replace humans with terrible consequences. We discuss the notion of accountable autonomy, and explore this concept within the context of practical reasoning agents. We survey literature from distinct fields such as management, healthcare, policy-making, and others, and differentiate and relate concepts connected to accountability. We present a list of justified requirements for accountable software agents and discuss research questions stemming from these requirements. We also propose a preliminary formalisation of one core aspect of accountability: responsibility.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
This formalism is based on dynamic logic, but it is out of scope of this paper to describe the semantics. Also, note that our purpose here is to specify the nature of the obligation implied by answerability. For implementing accountability processes, it is likely that agents can use less expresssive and possibly more specialised, representations of their obligations.
References
Dubnick, M.J.: Accountability as a cultural keyword. In: Bovens et al. [56]
Billingham, P., Colin, A.: The democratisation of accountability in the digital age: promise and pitfalls. In: Winner of Robert Davies Essay Competition 2016, Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Saïd Business School, The University of Oxford, U.K. (2016). https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Skoll_Centre/Docs/Accountability_BillinghamColin-Jones.pdf
Wachter, S.: Towards accountable A.I. in Europe? The Alan Turing Institute, U.K. https://www.turing.ac.uk/blog/towards-accountable-ai-europe. Accessed 25 July 2018
Bostrom, N., Yudkowsky, E.: The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Frankish, K., Ramsey, W.M. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 316–334. Cambridge University Press (2014)
Dignum, V.: Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue. Ethics Inf. Technol. 20(1), 1–3 (2018)
Simonite, T.: Tech firms move to put ethical guard rails around AI. Wired, May 2018. https://www.wired.com/story/tech-firms-move-to-put-ethical-guard-rails-around-ai/. Accessed 29 July 2018
Zou, J., Schiebinger, L.: AI can be sexist and racist – it’s time to make it fair. Nature 559, 324–326 (2018)
Georgeff, M., Pell, B., Pollack, M., Tambe, M., Wooldridge, M.: The belief-desire-intention model of agency. In: Müller, J.P., Rao, A.S., Singh, M.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS, vol. 1555, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49057-4_1
Meneguzzi, F.R., Zorzo, A.F., da Costa Móra, M.: Propositional planning in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 58–63. ACM, New York (2004)
Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1995), pp. 312–319. AAAI (1995). https://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICMAS/1995/ICMAS95-042.pdf
Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: The thing itself speaks: accountability as a foundation for requirements in sociotechnical systems. In: 2014 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law, p. 22. IEEE (2014)
Dastani, M., van der Torre, L., Yorke-Smith, N.: Commitments and interaction norms in organisations. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 31(2), 207–249 (2017)
Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Representation and monitoring of commitments and norms using OWL. AI Commun. 23(4), 341–356 (2010)
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Computational accountability. In: Proceedings of the AI*IA Workshop on Deep Understanding and Reasoning: A Challenge for Next-generation Intelligent Agents, volume 1802 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 56–62. CEUR-WS.org (2017)
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: ADOPT JaCaMo: accountability-driven organization programming technique for JaCaMo. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds.) PRIMA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10621, pp. 295–312. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_18
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R.: The AThOS project: first steps towards computational accountability. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Computational Accountability and Responsibility in Multiagent Systems, volume 2051 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 3–19. CEUR-WS.org (2018)
Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., Goodin, R.E.: Public accountability. In: Bovens et al. [56]
Dignum, V.: Responsible artificial intelligence: designing AI for human values. ITU J. ICT Discov. 1(1), 1–8 (2018)
Fox, J.: The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Dev. Pract. 17(4–5), 663–671 (2007)
Schillemans, T.: The public accountability review: a meta-analysis of public accountability research in six academic disciplines. Working paper, Utrecht University School of Governance (2013). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/275784
Emanuel, E.J., Emanuel, L.L.: What is accountability in health care? Ann. Intern. Med. 124(2), 229–239 (1996)
Eshleman, A.: Moral responsibility. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2016 edn. (2016)
PMI: Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®Guide), 5th edn. Project Management Institute (2013)
Jacka, J.M., Keller, P.J.: Business Process Mapping: Improving Customer Satisfaction, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)
Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Royakkers, L.M.M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Collective obligations and agents: who gets the blame? In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25927-5_9
Micalizio, R., Torasso, P., Torta, G.: On-line monitoring and diagnosis of multi-agent systems: a model based approach. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 848–852. IOS Press (2004)
Witteveen, C., Roos, N., van der Krogt, R., de Weerdt, M.: Diagnosis of single and multi-agent plans. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 805–812. ACM (2005)
Grossi, D., Royakkers, L., Dignum, F.: Organizational structure and responsibility. Artif. Intell. Law 15(3), 223–249 (2007)
de Jonge, F., Roos, N., Witteveen, C.: Primary and secondary diagnosis of multi-agent plan execution. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 18(2), 267–294 (2009)
Mastop, R.: Characterising responsibility in organisational structures: the problem of many hands. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6181, pp. 274–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14183-6_20
De Lima, T., Royakkers, L.M.M., Dignum, F.: Modeling the problem of many hands in organisations. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 215 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 79–84. IOS Press (2010)
Bulling, N., Dastani, M.: Coalitional responsibility in strategic settings. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 172–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_11
Micalizio, R., Torasso, P.: Cooperative monitoring to diagnose multiagent plans. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 51, 1–70 (2014)
Lorini, E., Longin, D., Mayor, E.: A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives. J. Log. Comput. 24(6), 1313–1339 (2014)
Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., Vasconcelos, W.W.: Group norms for multi-agent organisations. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 11(2), 15:1–15:31 (2016)
Alechina, N., Halpern, J.Y., Logan,B.: Causality, responsibility and blame in team plans. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1091–1099. IFAAMAS (2017)
Winikoff, M.: Towards trusting autonomous systems. In: El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., Ricci, A., Son, T.C. (eds.) EMAS 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10738, pp. 3–20. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91899-0_1
Bovens, M.: Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. Eur. Law J. 13(4), 447–468 (2007)
Richard, M.: ‘accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Adm. 78(3), 555–573 (2000)
Anderson, M.L., Perlis, D.R.: Logic, self-awareness and self-improvement: the metacognitive loop and the problem of brittleness. J. Log. Comput. 15(1), 21–40 (2005)
Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: No pizza for you: Value-based plan selection in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 178–184. ijcai.org (2017)
Meneguzzi, F., Rodrigues, O., Oren, N., Vasconcelos, W.W., Luck, M.: BDI reasoning with normative considerations. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 43, 127–146 (2015)
Gatt, A., et al.: From data to text in the neonatal intensive care unit: using NLG technology for decision support and information management. AI Commun. 22(3), 153–186 (2009)
Mulwa, C., Lawless, S., Sharp, M., Wade, V.: The evaluation of adaptive and personalised information retrieval systems: a review. Int. J. Knowl. Web Intell. 2(2/3), 138–156 (2011)
Bex, F., Grasso, F., Green, N., Paglieri, F., Reed, C.: Argument Technologies: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Studies in Logic and Argumentation. College Publications (2017)
Alechina, N., Dastani, M., Logan, B., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Reasoning about plan revision in BDI agent programs. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 412(44), 6115–6134 (2011)
Ma, J., Liu, W., Hong, J., Godo, L., Sierra, C.: Plan selection for probabilistic BDI agents. In: 2014 IEEE 26th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 83–90, November 2014
Winikoff, M.: An AgentSpeak meta-interpreter and its applications. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) ProMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 123–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11678823_8
Winikoff, M.: Debugging agent programs with “why?” questions. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 251–259. IFAAMAS (2017)
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artifi. Intell. 171(10–15), 855–874 (2007)
Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., van der Torre, L.W.N. (eds.) Normative Multi-Agent Systems, volume 4 of Dagstuhl Follow-Ups. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2013)
Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: An algebra for commitment protocols. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 14(2), 143–163 (2007)
Dignum, F., Weigand, H., Verharen, E.: Meeting the deadline: on the formal specification of temporal deontic constraints. In: Raś, Z.W., Michalewicz, M. (eds.) ISMIS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1079, pp. 243–252. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61286-6_149
Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York (1995)
Finkel, A., Iyer, S.P., Sutre, G.: Well-abstracted transition systems: application to FIFO automata. Inf. Comput. 181(1), 1–31 (2003)
Bovens, M., Goodin, R.E., Schillemans, T. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cranefield, S., Oren, N., Vasconcelos, W.W. (2019). Accountability for Practical Reasoning Agents. In: Lujak, M. (eds) Agreement Technologies. AT 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11327. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17294-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17294-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17293-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17294-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)