Supporting Organizational Accountability Inside Multiagent Systems
We present and analyze the problem of realizing an accountability-supporting system in multiagent systems technology. To this aim and to avoid ambiguities, we first characterize the concept of accountability, which we later work to realize computationally, particularly in relation to the partially overlapping notion of responsibility. Then, with the aim of achieving accountability as a design property, we provide a few principles that characterize an accountability-supporting multiagent system. We provide an accountability protocol to regulate the interaction between an agent, willing to play a role in an organization, and the organization itself. Finally, we show as a case study how the use of such a protocol allows multiagent systems, realized with JaCaMo, to support accountability.
KeywordsComputational ethics Accountability Multiagent systems Sociotechnical systems
This work was partially supported by the Accountable Trustworthy Organizations and Systems (AThOS) project, funded by Università degli Studi di Torino and Compagnia di San Paolo (CSP 2014). The authors warmly thank the reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments which helped revising the paper.
- 1.Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Commitment-based agent interaction in JaCaMo+. Fundam. Inf. (2017, to appear). http://www.di.unito.it/argo/papers/2017_FundamentaInformaticae.pdf
- 2.Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: ADOPT JaCaMo: accountability-driven organization programming technique for JaCaMo. In: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, PRIMA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
- 3.Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Computational accountability. In: Proceedings of the AI*IA WS on Deep Understanding and Reasoning: A Challenge for Next-Generation Intelligent Agents 2016. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1802. CEUR-WS.org (2017). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1802/paper8.pdf
- 7.Bovens, M., Goodin, R.E., Schillemans, T. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014)Google Scholar
- 9.Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J.: Designing for accountability and transparency: a value-based argumentation approach. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P.E., van de Poel, I. (eds.) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory. Values and Application Domains. Springer, Dordrecht (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_12 Google Scholar
- 10.Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: ICMAS, pp. 41–48. The MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
- 11.Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: The thing itself speaks: accountability as a foundation for requirements in sociotechnical systems. In: IEEE 7th International Workshop RELAW, p. 22. IEEE Computer Society (2014)Google Scholar
- 12.Conte, R., Paolucci, M.: Responsibility for societies of agents. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 7(4) (2004)Google Scholar
- 15.Eshleman, A.: Moral responsibility. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014)Google Scholar