Biblio

Accountability is an often called for property of technical systems. It is a requirement for algorithmic decision systems, autonomous cyber-physical systems, and for software systems in general. As a concept, accountability goes back to the early history of Liberalism and is suggested as a tool to limit the use of power. This long history has also given us many, often slightly differing, definitions of accountability. The problem that software developers now face is to understand what accountability means for their systems and how to reflect it in a system's design. To enable the rigorous study of accountability in a system, we need models that are suitable for capturing such a varied concept. In this paper, we present a method to express and compare different definitions of accountability using Structural Causal Models. We show how these models can be used to evaluate a system's design and present a small use case based on an autonomous car.

Accountability is an often called for property of technical systems. It is a requirement for algorithmic decision systems, autonomous cyber-physical systems, and for software systems in general. As a concept, accountability goes back to the early history of Liberalism and is suggested as a tool to limit the use of power. This long history has also given us many, often slightly differing, definitions of accountability. The problem that software developers now face is to understand what accountability means for their systems and how to reflect it in a system's design. To enable the rigorous study of accountability in a system, we need models that are suitable for capturing such a varied concept. In this paper, we present a method to express and compare different definitions of accountability using Structural Causal Models. We show how these models can be used to evaluate a system's design and present a small use case based on an autonomous car.

Accountability is the property of a system that enables the uncovering of causes for events and helps understand who or what is responsible for these events. Definitions and interpretations of accountability differ; however, they are typically expressed in natural language that obscures design decisions and the impact on the overall system. This paper presents a formal model to express the accountability properties of cyber-physical systems. To illustrate the usefulness of our approach, we demonstrate how three different interpretations of accountability can be expressed using the proposed model and describe the implementation implications through a case study. This formal model can be used to highlight context specific-elements of accountability mechanisms, define their capabilities, and express different notions of accountability. In addition, it makes design decisions explicit and facilitates discussion, analysis and comparison of different approaches.