🔉    unmute for sound

Responsible Mechanism Design

ESSLLI-26 course

Collective decision-making processes have a common pitfall: when things go awry, it is usually hard to identify a single person who should be blamed for the harmful outcome of a collective decision. Could collective decision-making processes be designed to avoid this? This question is at the core of responsible mechanism design—a new interdisciplinary area of research on the border of philosophy, game theory, logic, and artificial intelligence to be introduced in this course. We will discuss multiple formal definitions of responsibility and individual accountability, study whether the individual accountability requirement is consistent with shared authority, and cover design techniques for enforcing various forms of individual accountability for collective decisions.

SLIDES

Literature

  1. Baier, C.; Funke, F.; and Majumdar, R. 2021. A Game-Theoretic Account of Responsibility Allocation. In 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    (IJCAI-21). [link]

  2. Belnap, N.; and Perloff, M. 1990. Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives. In Knowledge representation and defeasible reasoning, 167–190. Springer. [link]

  3. Bleher, H.; and Braun, M. 2022. Diffused responsibility: attributions of responsibility in the use of AI-driven clinical decision support systems. AI and Ethics, 2(4): 747–761.

  4. Braham, M.; and van Hees, M. 2011. Responsibility Voids. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(242): 6–15.

  5. Braham, M.; and van Hees, M. 2018. Voids or fragmentation: Moral responsibility for collective outcomes. The Economic Journal, 128(612): F95–F113.

  6. Broersen, J. 2011a. Deontic epistemic STIT logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. Journal of Applied Logic, 9(2):137–152.

  7. Broersen, J. M. 2011b. Making a start with the STIT logic analysis of intentional action. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(4): 499–530.

  8. Cao, R.; and Naumov, P. 2017. Budget-Constrained Dynamics in Multiagent Systems. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017, 915–921.

  9. Dastani, M.; and Yazdanpanah, V. 2023. Responsibility of AI systems. Ai & Society, 38(2): 843–852.

  10. Duijf, H. 2018. Responsibility voids and cooperation. Philosophy of the social sciences, 48(4): 434–460.

  11. Duijf, H. 2022. The logic of responsibility voids. Springer.

  12. Duijf, H.; and van De Putte, F. 2022. The problem of no hands: responsibility voids in collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare, 58(4): 753–790.

  13. Elgot, J. 2017. Lib Dem and Tory candidates draw straws in Northumberland vote. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/lib-dem-and-tory-candidates-draw-straws-in-northumberland-vote. Accessed: 2025-01-15.

  14. Feng, C.; Deshpande, G.; Liu, C.; Gu, R.; Luo, Y.-J.; and Krueger, F. 2016. Diffusion of responsibility attenuates altruistic punishment: A functional magnetic resonance imaging effective connectivity study. Human brain mapping, 37(2): 663–677.

  15. Forsyth, D. R.; Zyzniewski, L. E.; and Giammanco, C. A. 2002. Responsibility diffusion in cooperative collectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1): 54–65.

  16. Frankfurt, H. G. 1969. Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy, 66(23): 829–839.

  17. Halpern, J. Y. 2016. Actual causality. MIT Press.

  18. Horty, J.; and Pacuit, E. 2017. Action types in STIT semantics. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 10(4): 617–637.

  19. Horty, J. F. 2001. Agency and deontic logic. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

  20. Horty, J. F.; and Belnap, N. 1995. The deliberative STIT: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(6): 583–644.

  21. Iusmen, I. 2020. Whose children? Protecting unaccompanied migrant children in Europe: A case of diffused responsibility? The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 28(4): 925–949.

  22. Kagan, S. 1991. The Limits of Morality. Oxford Ethics Series. Clarendon Press.

  23. List, C. 2021. Group agency and artificial intelligence. Philosophy & technology, 34(4): 1213–1242.

  24. Liu, D.; Liu, X.; and Wu, S. 2022. A Literature Review of Diffusion of Responsibility Phenomenon. In 2022 8th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2022), 1806–1810. Atlantis Press.

  25. Mynatt, C.; and Sherman, S. J. 1975. Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: A direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6): 1111.

  26. Naumov, P. 2026. “Responsible Mechanism Design.” In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Senior Member Track: Blue Sky Ideas. Vol. 40. 2026 [link]

  27. Naumov, P.; and Jiang, J. 2026. Higher-Order Responsibility. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 40. 2026

  28. Naumov, P.; and Tao, J. 2019. Blameworthiness in Strategic Games. In Proceedings of Thirty-third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19).

  29. Naumov, P.; and Tao, J. 2020a. Blameworthiness in Security Games. In Proceedings of Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-20). Naumov, P.; and Tao, J. 2020b. An Epistemic Logic of Blameworthiness. Artificial Intelligence, 283. 103269.

  30. Naumov, P.; and Tao, J. 2021. Two Forms of Responsibility in Strategic Games. In 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21). Naumov, P.; and Tao, J. 2023.

  31. Counterfactual and seeing-to-it responsibilities in strategic games. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 174(10): 103353.

  32. Naumov, P.; and Tao, J. 2025. Responsibility Gap in Collective Decision Making. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

  33. NTSB. 2019. Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental Automated Driving System and Pedestrian Tempe, Arizona March 18, 2018. National Transportation Safety Board, Report NTSB/HAR-19/03. Washington, DC.

  34. Olkhovikov, G. K.; and Wansing, H. 2019. Inference as doxastic agency. Part I: The basics of justification STIT logic. Studia Logica, 107(1): 167–194.

  35. Rowan, Z. R.; Kan, E.; Frick, P. J.; and Cauffman, E. 2022. Not (entirely) guilty: The role of co-offenders in diffusing responsibility for crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 59(4): 415–448.

  36. Shi, Q. 2024. Responsibility in Extensive Form Games. In Proceedings of 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-24).

  37. Shi, Q.; and Naumov, P. 2025. Responsibility in Multi-Step Decision Schemes. Journal of Philosophical Logic.

  38. Shi Q.; and Naumov, P. 2025. A Graph-Theoretical Perspective on Law Design for Multiagent Systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 40. 2026

  39. United States Air Force. 2024. Launching Missiles. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197675/. Accessed:

    2024-09-24.

  40. Widerker, D.; and McKenna, M., eds. 2003. Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: Essays on the importance of alternative possibilities. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

  41. Yazdanpanah, V.; Dastani, M.; Jamroga, W.; Alechina, N.; and Logan, B. 2019. Strategic responsibility under imperfect information. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 592–600. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.