Causal analysis for attributing responsibility in legal cases

Chockler, Hana; Fenton, Norman; Keppens, Jeroen; Lagnado, David A.

doi:10.1145/2746090.2746102

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For problems in this class, the original and updated definitions agree, so they are tractable for the updated definition as well. Another example was given by Chockler et al (2015), who used causal models for the analysis of complex legal cases. These models were shown to be highly modular, with each variable affecting only a small part of the model, thus allowing for a modular computation of the degrees of responsibility and blame.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Computational Complexity of Structure-Based Causality

Aleksandrowicz

Chockler

Halpern

et al. 2017

jair

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Halpern and Pearl introduced a definition of actual causality; Eiter and Lukasiewicz showed that computing whether X = x is a cause of Y = y is NP-complete in binary models (where all variables can take on only two values) and Σ P 2 -complete in general models. In the final version of their paper, Halpern and Pearl slightly modified the definition of actual cause, in order to deal with problems pointed out by Hopkins and Pearl. As we show, this modification has a nontrivial impact on the complexity of computing whether X = x is a cause of Y = y. To characterize the complexity, a new family D P k , k = 1, 2, 3, . . ., of complexity classes is introduced, which generalizes the class D P introduced by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis (D P is just D P 1 ).We show that the complexity of computing causality under the updated definition is D P 2 -complete. Chockler and Halpern extended the definition of causality by introducing notions of responsibility and blame, and characterized the complexity of determining the degree of responsibility and blame using the original definition of causality. Here, we completely characterize the complexity using the updated definition of causality. In contrast to the results on causality, we show that moving to the updated definition does not result in a difference in the complexity of computing responsibility and blame.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Computational Complexity of Structure-Based Causality

Aleksandrowicz

Chockler

Halpern

et al. 2017

jair

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Work within this space has examined how algorithms may reinforce existing prejudices within society [3], or how GPS technology perform a dualuse for perpetrators to further monitor their victim-survivors [28]. Scrutinising blame within software groups [2,57], natural disasters [35] and legal cases [14] are familiar representations of what Grimpe point out as the 'consequentialist model of responsibility'. While identifying causality may be necessary, to only focus on one quality of responsibility ((2) blame) may mean we are excluding a richer consideration of responsibility's dimensions of (1) duty and (3) acting independently to technical design.…”

Section: What Do We Mean By Responsibility?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of Moral Responsibility: Rethinking Technologies for Domestic Violence Prevention Work

Bellini

Forrest

Westmarland

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a critical examination of how digital systems within a charitable organisation in the North of England are being used to both support and challenge male perpetrators of domestic violence. While there exists a range of digital tools to support the victim-survivors of domestic violence, no tools are available to challenge the abusive and harmful behaviours of perpetrators. Through this work, we uncovered the compelling moral responsibilities intrinsic within interactions with technological systems between perpetrators and support workers. As such, we highlight four spaces of negotiation concerning a person's responsibility in changing their abusive behaviour, which we have coined as mechanisms to represent their fundamental and interconnected nature. These mechanisms include selfawareness, acknowledging the extent of harms, providing peer support and respecting authorities. These insights are the basis for offering some practical considerations for HCI scholars, policymakers and intervention designers in their work with perpetrators of violence.

show abstract

“…Recently, there has been some work that formalizes causality in an epistemic context. For example, while defining responsibility/blame in legal cases, Chockler et al [7] modeled an agent's uncertainty of the causal setting using an "epistemic state", which is a pair (K, Pr), where K is a set of causal settings and Pr is a probability distribution over K. Their model is based on structural equations. We on the other hand define epistemic causality based on the more expressive formalism proposed by Batusov and Soutchanski [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards A Logical Account of Epistemic Causality

Khan

Soutchanski

2019

Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reasoning about observed effects and their causes is important in multi-agent contexts. While there has been much work on causality from an objective standpoint, causality from the point of view of some particular agent has received much less attention. In this paper, we address this issue by incorporating an epistemic dimension to an existing formal model of causality. We define what it means for an agent to know the causes of an effect. Then using a counterexample, we prove that epistemic causality is a different notion from its objective counterpart.

show abstract

Causal analysis for attributing responsibility in legal cases

Cited by 14 publications

References 24 publications

The Computational Complexity of Structure-Based Causality

The Computational Complexity of Structure-Based Causality

Mechanisms of Moral Responsibility: Rethinking Technologies for Domestic Violence Prevention Work

Towards A Logical Account of Epistemic Causality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About