Counterfactual Reasoning for Causal Responsibility Attribution in Probabilistic Multi-Agent Systems

With the growing adoption of artificial intelligence in high-stakes decision-making, identifying the causes of outcomes--particularly failures--and determining who is responsible has become a critical concern. In this work, we examine how well formal definitions of \textit{responsibility attribution}, grounded in the framework of \textit{actual causality}, align with human judgments of responsibility. To this end, we conduct a large-scale survey to elicit human judgments of responsibility in multi-agent sequential decision-making scenarios, using a modified version of the card game Goofspiel. We evaluate multiple responsibility attribution methods, assess their alignment with human judgments about responsibility, and identify factors that significantly shape responsibility judgments. While no single responsibility attribution method consistently aligns with human responses, our findings highlight key factors that influence human responsibility judgments, including agent-specific biases and amount of information available to agents during decision-making.

As multi-agent systems (MAS) become increasingly complex, identifying the contributions of individual agents is critical for system optimization. However, existing approaches lack a rigorous, unified framework for credit assignment. In this work, we formalize agent attribution as a cooperative game, parameterized by the coalition distribution, removal protocol, and target metric. Using this framework, we show that Leave-One-Out (LOO) identifies bottleneck agents as effectively as combinatorial methods, but at a fraction of the computational cost. We also demonstrate that removal protocols induce distinct games: Agent ablation isolates structural bottlenecks, whereas introspective LLM judges fail to faithfully approximate this behavior. Furthermore, to evaluate the utility of specific agent backbones, we introduce attribution via model replacement. By substituting underlying models of low-contribution agents, we improve task performance by up to 17% while reducing cost by up to 35% across three benchmarks. Finally, we apply our framework to audit a medical MAS, revealing that agent contributions to diagnostic accuracy and ethical behavior are often decoupled. By intervening on counterproductive roles, we observe an increase in ethics alignment while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Overall, this work provides a principled approach for cost-effective MAS attribution and intervention.

The coordination of heterogeneous autonomous agents in dynamic, adversarial environments requires simultaneous satisfaction of geometric constraints, logical consistency, temporal reasoning, and strategic optimization. Existing sheaf- and topos-theoretic frameworks provide powerful tools for geometric consensus, knowledge alignment, and causal planning, but lack explicit models for value, reward, and strategic choice. This report presents a unified categorical framework that integrates event calculus, SCEL-like ensemble formation, and game-theoretic reward structures into a single Grothendieck topos of time-space histories. We introduce the notion of a \emph{game sheaf} whose stalks contain utility functions and policy distributions, and restriction maps encode both parallel transport and best-response dynamics. We prove that Nash equilibria correspond to global sections of a derived best-response correspondence sheaf, while cohomological obstructions classify failures of strategic consistency. A detailed case study of an immunological ``bastion defense'' scenario -- heterogeneous agents forming attack/defense ensembles under resource constraints -- demonstrates the framework's expressiveness. This synthesis provides a rigorous foundation for verifiable, autonomic, and economically rational multi-agent systems.