Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Hardness Results
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Theoretical Computer Science

Reasoning about Strategies: on the Satisfiability Problem

Profile image of Moshe VardiMoshe Vardi

2017, Log. Methods Comput. Sci.

https://doi.org/10.23638/LMCS-13(1:9)2017
visibility

…

description

37 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Strategy Logic (SL, for short) has been introduced by Mogavero, Murano, and Vardi as a useful formalism for reasoning explicitly about strategies, as first-order objects, in multi-agent concurrent games. This logic turns out to be very powerful, subsuming all major previously studied modal logics for strategic reasoning, including ATL, ATL*, and the like. Unfortunately, due to its high expressiveness, SL has a non-elementarily decidable model-checking problem and the satisfiability question is undecidable, specifically Sigma_1^1. In order to obtain a decidable sublogic, we introduce and study here One-Goal Strategy Logic (SL[1G], for short). This is a syntactic fragment of SL, strictly subsuming ATL*, which encompasses formulas in prenex normal form having a single temporal goal at a time, for every strategy quantification of agents. We prove that, unlike SL, SL[1G] has the bounded tree-model property and its satisfiability problem is decidable in 2ExpTime, thus not harder than the ...

Related papers

Extended Graded Modalities in Strategy Logic
Aniello Murano

Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 2016

Strategy Logic (SL) is a logical formalism for strategic reasoning in multi-agent systems. Its main feature is that it has variables for strategies that are associated to specific agents with a binding operator. We introduce Graded Strategy Logic (GRADEDSL), an extension of SL by graded quantifiers over tuples of strategy variables, i.e., "there exist at least g different tuples (x 1 , ..., x n) of strategies" where g is a cardinal from the set N ∪ {ℵ 0 , ℵ 1 , 2 ℵ 0 }. We prove that the model-checking problem of GRADEDSL is decidable. We then turn to the complexity of fragments of GRADEDSL. When the g's are restricted to finite cardinals, written GRADED N SL, the complexity of model-checking is no harder than for SL, i.e., it is non-elementary in the quantifier rank. We illustrate our formalism by showing how to count the number of different strategy profiles that are Nash equilibria (NE), or subgame-perfect equilibria (SPE). By analyzing the structure of the specific formulas involved, we conclude that the important problems of checking for the existence of a unique NE or SPE can both be solved in 2EXPTIME, which is not harder than merely checking for the existence of such equilibria.

View PDFchevron_right
Strategy Logics and the Game Description Language
Wiebe Van Der Hoek

2007

The Game Description Language (GDL) is a special purpose declarative language for defining games. GDL is used in the AAAI General Game Playing Competition, which tests the ability of computer programs to play games in general, rather than just to play a specific game. Participants in the competition are provided with a game specified in GDL, and then required to play this game. Recently, there has been much interest in the use of strategic cooperation logics for reasoning about game-like scenarios -Alternatingtime Temporal Logic (ATL) is perhaps the best known example. The aim of this paper is to make a link between ATL and GDL. We show that a GDL specification can be viewed as a specification of an ATL model, and that ATL can thus be interpreted over GDL specifications. Our main result is that it is possible to translate a propositional GDL specification into an "equivalent" ATL specification, which is only polynomially larger than the original GDL specification. As a corollary, we are able to characterise the complexity of reasoning about GDL-specified games using ATL: it is EXPTIME-complete.

View PDFchevron_right
Graded modalities in Strategy Logic
Aniello Murano

Information and Computation, 2018

Strategy Logic (SL) is a logical formalism for strategic reasoning in multi-agent systems. Its main feature is that it has variables for strategies that are associated to specific agents using a binding operator. In this paper we introduce Graded Strategy Logic (GradedSL), an extension of SL by graded quantifiers over tuples of strategy variables, i.e., "there exist at least g different tuples (x 1 , ..., x n) of strategies" where g is a cardinal from the set N ∪ {ℵ 0 , ℵ 1 , 2 ℵ0 }. We prove that the model-checking problem of GradedSL is decidable. We then turn to the complexity of fragments of GradedSL. When the g's are restricted to finite cardinals, written Graded N SL, the complexity of model-checking is no harder than for SL, i.e., it is non-elementary in the quantifier-block rank. We illustrate our formalism by showing how to count the number of different strategy profiles that are Nash equilibria (NE). By analysing the structure of the specific formulas involved, we conclude that the important problem of checking for the existence of a unique NE can be solved in 2ExpTime, which is not harder than merely checking for the existence of such an equilibrium.

View PDFchevron_right
A Behavioral Hierarchy of Strategy Logic
Aniello Murano

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2014

Starting from the seminal work introducing Alternating Temporal Logic, formalisms for strategic reasoning have assumed a prominent role in multi-agent systems verification. Among the others, Strategy Logic (SL) allows to represent sophisticated solution concepts, by treating agent strategies as first-order objects. A drawback from the high power of SL is to admit non-behavioral strategies: a choice of an agent, at a given point of a play, may depend on choices other agents can make in the future or in counterfactual plays. As the latter moves are unpredictable, such strategies cannot be easily implemented, making the use of the logic problematic in practice. In this paper, we describe a hierarchy of SL fragments as syntactic restrictions of the recently defined Boolean-Goal Strategy Logic (SL[bg]). Specifically, we introduce Alternating-Goal Strategy Logic (SL[ag]) that, by imposing a suitable alternation over the nesting of the Boolean connectives in SL[bg], induces two dual chains of sets of formulas, the conjunctive and disjunctive ones. A formula belongs to the level i of the conjunctive chain if it just contains conjunctions of atomic goals together with a unique formula belonging to the disjunctive chain of level i − 1. The disjunctive chain is defined similarly. We formally prove that classic and behavioral semantics for SL [ag] coincide. Additionally, we study the related model-checking problem showing that it is 2ExpTime-complete.

View PDFchevron_right
Reasoning about strategies
Aniello Murano

Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, LIPIcs, 2010

In open systems verification, to formally check for reliability, one needs an appropriate formalism to model the interaction between open entities and express that the system is correct no matter how the environment behaves. An important contribution in this context is given by modal logics for strategic ability, in the setting of multi-agent games, such as ATL, ATL*, and the like. Recently, Chatterjee, Henzinger, and Piterman introduced Strategy Logic, which we denote here by SL CHP , with the aim of getting a powerful framework for reasoning explicitly about strategies. SL CHP is obtained by using first-order quantifications over strategies and it has been investigated in the specific setting of two-agents turned-based game structures where a non-elementary model-checking algorithm has been provided. While SL CHP is a very expressive logic, we claim that it does not fully capture the strategic aspects of multi-agent systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Strategy Logic with Imperfect Information
Moshe Vardi

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2021

We introduce an extension of Strategy Logic for the imperfect-information setting, called SL ii and study its model-checking problem. As this logic naturally captures multi-player games with imperfect information, this problem is undecidable; but we introduce a syntactical class of “hierarchical instances” for which, intuitively, as one goes down the syntactic tree of the formula, strategy quantifications are concerned with finer observations of the model, and we prove that model-checking SL ii restricted to hierarchical instances is decidable. This result, because it allows for complex patterns of existential and universal quantification on strategies, greatly generalises the decidability of distributed synthesis for systems with hierarchical information. It allows us to easily derive new decidability results concerning strategic problems under imperfect information such as the existence of Nash equilibria or rational synthesis. To establish this result, we go through an intermedia...

View PDFchevron_right
On Satisfiability in ATL with Strategy Contexts
Nicolas Troquard

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2012

This paper is a study of Brihaye et al.'s ATL with strategy contexts. We focus on memory-less strategies and establish that the resulting logic is undecidable. An immediate corollary follows that the problem of satisfiability checking of every variant of ATL with strategy context introduced by Brihaye et al. is undecidable. We also relate ATLsc with memory-less strategies with ATL with explicit strategies, providing a decidable fragment.

View PDFchevron_right
PDL as a Multi-Agent Strategy Logic Extended Abstract
Jan van Eijck

2013

Propositional Dynamic Logic or PDL was invented as a logic for reasoning about regular programming constructs. We propose a new perspective on PDL as a multi-agent strategic logic (MASL). This logic for strategic reasoning has group strategies as rst class citizens, and brings game logic closer to standard modal logic. We demonstrate that MASL can express key notions of game theory, social choice theory and voting theory in a natural way, we give a sound and complete proof system for MASL, and we show that MASL encodes coalition logic. Next, we extend the language to epistemic multi-agent strategic logic (EMASL), we give examples of what it can express, we propose to use it for posing new questions in epistemic social choice theory, and we give a calculus for reasoning about a natural class of epistemic game models. We end by listing avenues for future research and by tracing connections to a number of other logics for reasoning about strategies.

View PDFchevron_right
GDL Meets ATL: A Logic for Game Description and Strategic Reasoning
Guifei Jiang, Laurent Perrussel

This paper presents a logical framework that extends the Game Description Language with coalition operators from Alternatingtime Temporal Logic and prioritised strategy connectives. Our semantics is built upon the standard state transition model. The new framework allows us to formalise van Benthem’s game-oriented principles in multiplayer games, and formally deriveWeak Determinacy and Zermelo’s Theorem for two-player games. We demonstrate with a real-world game how to use our language to specify a game and design a strategy, and how to use our framework to verify a winning/no-losing strategy. Finally, we show that the model-checking problem of our logic is in 2EXPTIME with respect to the size of game structure and the length of formula, which is no worse than the model-checking problem in ATL*.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a Model Checking Tool for Strategy Logic with Simple Goals
silvia stranieri

2021

In this work, we raise the need for an implementation of a model checker for Strategy Logic with Simple Goals (SL[SG]), a recentlyintroduced fragment of Strategy Logic (SL). Notably, SL[SG] subsumes the logic ATL and is strictly contained in SL[1G], a well-known fragment of SL. Thus, the model checker for SL[1G] in MCMAS can handle SL[SG] formulas as well. However we show that, for SL[SG] formulas that are in ATL, one can save space and time by using the MCMAS model checker for ATL. As the model checking complexity for both SL[SG] and ATL is PTIME-complete, there is hope that an implementation in MCMAS for SL[SG] would work as fast as that for ATL.

View PDFchevron_right

References (67)

  1. T. Agotnes, V. Goranko, and W. Jamroga. Alternating-Time Temporal Logics with Irrevocable Strategies. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-2007), Brussels, Belgium, June 25-27, 2007, pages 15-24, 2007.
  2. R. Alur, T.A. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman. Alternating-Time Temporal Logic. Journal of the ACM, 49(5):672-713, 2002.
  3. Francesco Belardinelli. Reasoning about Knowledge and Strategies: Epistemic Strategy Logic. In Proceedings 2nd International Workshop on Strategic Reasoning, SR 2014, Grenoble, France, April 5-6, 2014., pages 27-33, 2014.
  4. N. Bulling and W. Jamroga. Comparing variants of strategic ability: how uncertainty and memory influence general properties of games. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(3):474-518, 2014.
  5. Nils Bulling, Wojciech Jamroga, and Jürgen Dix. Reasoning about temporal properties of rational play. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 53(1-4):51-114, 2008.
  6. T. Brihaye, A.D.C. Lopes, F. Laroussinie, and N. Markey. ATL with Strategy Contexts and Bounded Memory. In Symposium on Logical Foundations of Computer Science'09, LNCS 5407, pages 92-106. Springer, 2009.
  7. M. Bojańczyk. The Finite Graph Problem for Two-Way Alternating Automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 3(298):511-528, 2003.
  8. C. Chareton, J. Brunel, and D. Chemouil. Towards an Updatable Strategy Logic. In Fabio Mo- gavero, Aniello Murano, and Moshe Y. Vardi, editors, Proceedings 1st International Workshop on Strategic Reasoning (SR 2013), pages 91-98, 2013.
  9. Christophe Chareton, Julien Brunel, and David Chemouil. A logic with revocable and refinable strategies. Information and Computation, 242:157-182, 2015.
  10. K. Chatterjee, L. Doyen, E. Filiot, and J. F. Raskin. Doomsday Equilibria for omega-Regular Games. In VMCAI 2014, pages 78-97. Springer, 2014.
  11. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D.A. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, 2002.
  12. K. Chatterjee, T.A. Henzinger, and N. Piterman. Strategy Logic. In International Conference on Concurrency Theory'07, LNCS 4703, pages 59-73. Springer, 2007.
  13. K. Chatterjee, T.A. Henzinger, and N. Piterman. Strategy Logic. Information and Computa- tion, 208(6):677-693, 2010.
  14. P. Cermák, A. Lomuscio, and A. Murano. Verifying and Synthesising Multi-Agent Systems against One-Goal Strategy Logic Specifications. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA., pages 2038- 2044. AAAI Press, 2015.
  15. P. Čermák, A. Lomuscio, F. Mogavero, and A. Murano. MCMAS-SLK: A Model Checker for the Verification of Strategy Logic Specifications. In Computer Aided Verification'14, LNCS 8559, pages 524-531. Springer, 2014.
  16. A. Da Costa, F. Laroussinie, and N. Markey. ATL with Strategy Contexts: Expressiveness and Model Checking. In IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science'10, LIPIcs 8, pages 120-132, 2010.
  17. A. Da Costa, F. Laroussinie, and N. Markey. Quantified CTL: Expressiveness and model check- ing -(extended abstract). In CONCUR, volume 7454 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 177-192. Springer, 2012.
  18. H.D. Ebbinghaus and J. Flum. Finite Model Theory. Springer-Verlag, 1995.
  19. E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern. "Sometimes" and "Not Never" Revisited: On Branching Versus Linear Time. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151-178, 1986.
  20. E.A. Emerson and C.S. Jutla. The Complexity of Tree Automata and Logics of Programs (Extended Abstract). In Foundation of Computer Science'88, pages 328-337, 1988.
  21. E.A. Emerson and C.S. Jutla. The Complexity of Tree Automata and Logics of Programs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 29(1):132-158, 1999.
  22. D. Fisman, O. Kupferman, and Y. Lustig. Rational Synthesis. In International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems'10, LNCS 6015, pages 190-204. Springer, 2010.
  23. B. Finkbeiner and S. Schewe. Coordination Logic. In EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic'10, LNCS 6247, pages 305-319. Springer, 2010.
  24. J. Gutierrez, P. Harrenstein, and M. Wooldridge. Reasoning about Equilibria in Game-Like Concurrent Systems. In 14, pages 408-417. AAAI Press, 2014.
  25. E. Grädel, W. Thomas, and T. Wilke. Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research. LNCS 2500. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
  26. D. Harel. A Simple Highly Undecidable Domino Problem. In Logic and Computation Confer- ence'84, 1984.
  27. A. Herzig, E. Lorini, and D. Walther. Reasoning about Actions Meets Strategic Logics. In Logic, Rationality, and Interaction -4th International Workshop, LORI 2013, Hangzhou, China, Oc- tober 9-12, 2013, Proceedings, pages 162-175. Springer, 2013.
  28. W. Hodges. Model Theory. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
  29. C. Huang, S. Schewe, and F. Wang. Model-Checking Iterated Games. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems -19th International Conference, TACAS 2013, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2013, Rome, Italy, March 16-24, 2013. Proceedings, pages 154-168. Springer, 2013.
  30. W. Jamroga and A. Murano. On Module Checking and Strategies. In AAMAS'14, pages 701- 708. International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS '14, Paris, France, May 5-9, 2014, 2014.
  31. W. Jamroga and W. van der Hoek. Agents that Know How to Play. Fundamenta Informaticae, 63(2-3):185-219, 2004.
  32. R.M. Keller. Formal Verification of Parallel Programs. Communication of the ACM, 19(7):371- 384, 1976.
  33. D. Kozen. Results on the Propositional mu-Calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 27(3):333- 354, 1983.
  34. O. Kupferman, G. Perelli, and M.Y. Vardi. Synthesis with Rational Environments. In EUMAS 14, LNCS 8953, pages 219-235, 2014.
  35. O. Kupferman, G. Perelli, and M.Y. Vardi. Synthesis with Rational Environments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 78(1):3-20, 2016.
  36. S.A. Kripke. Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16:83-94, 1963.
  37. O. Kupferman, M.Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. An Automata Theoretic Approach to Branching- Time Model Checking. Journal of the ACM, 47(2):312-360, 2000.
  38. O. Kupferman, M.Y. Vardi, and P. Wolper. Module Checking. Information and Computation, 164(2):322-344, 2001.
  39. F. Laroussinie and N. Markey. Satisfiability of ATL with Strategy Contexts. In GandALF, volume 119 of EPTCS, pages 208-223, 2013.
  40. F. Laroussinie and N. Markey. Augmenting with strategy contexts. Information and Compu- tation, 245:98-123, 2015.
  41. Fabio Mogavero, Aniello Murano, Giuseppe Perelli, and Moshe Y. Vardi. What Makes ATL* Decidable? A Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic. In CONCUR, pages 193-208, 2012.
  42. F. Mogavero, A. Murano, G. Perelli, and M.Y. Vardi. Reasoning About Strategies: On the Model-Checking Problem. ACM Transactions On Computational Logic, 15(4):34:1-42, 2014.
  43. F. Mogavero, A. Murano, and L. Sauro. On the Boundary of Behavioral Strategies. In IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science'13, pages 263-272, 2013.
  44. F. Mogavero, A. Murano, and L. Sauro. A Behavioral Hierarchy of Strategy Logic. In CLIMA XV, LNCS 8624. Springer, 2014. To appear.
  45. F. Mogavero, A. Murano, and M.Y. Vardi. Reasoning About Strategies. In IARCS Annual Con- ference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science'10, LIPIcs 8, pages 133-144, 2010.
  46. F. Mogavero, A. Murano, and M.Y. Vardi. Relentful Strategic Reasoning in Alternating-Time Temporal Logic. In International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning'10, LNAI 6355, pages 371-387. Springer, 2010.
  47. F. Mogavero, A. Murano, and M. Y. Vardi. Relentful Strategic Reasoning in Alternating-Time Temporal Logic. J. Log. Comput., 26(5):1663-1695, 2016.
  48. F. Mogavero and G. Perelli. Binding Forms in First-Order Logic. In EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic'15, LIPIcs 41, pages 648-665, 2015.
  49. D.E. Muller and P.E. Schupp. Alternating Automata on Infinite Trees. Theoretical Computer Science, 54(2-3):267-276, 1987.
  50. D.E. Muller and P.E. Schupp. Simulating Alternating Tree Automata by Nondeterministic Automata: New Results and New Proofs of Theorems of Rabin, McNaughton, and Safra. Theoretical Computer Science, 141(1-2):69-107, 1995.
  51. R.B. Myerson. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press, 1997.
  52. M.J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein. A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, 1994.
  53. M. Pauly. A Modal Logic for Coalitional Power in Games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1):149-166, 2002.
  54. S. Pinchinat. A Generic Constructive Solution for Concurrent Games with Expressive Con- straints on Strategies. In International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis'07, LNCS 4762, pages 253-267. Springer, 2007.
  55. A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Programs. In Foundation of Computer Science'77, pages 46-57, 1977.
  56. A. Pnueli and R. Rosner. On the Synthesis of a Reactive Module. In ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages'89, pages 179-190. Association for Com- puting Machinery, 1989.
  57. S. Schewe. ATL* Satisfiability is 2ExpTime-Complete. In International Colloquium on Au- tomata, Languages and Programming'08, LNCS 5126, pages 373-385. Springer, 2008.
  58. W. Thomas. Automata on Infinite Objects. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science (vol. B), pages 133-191. MIT Press, 1990.
  59. N. Troquard and D. Walther. On Satisfiability in ATL with Strategy Contexts. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence -13th European Conference, JELIA 2012, Toulouse, France, September 26-28, 2012. Proceedings, pages 398-410, 2012.
  60. M.Y. Vardi. Why is Modal Logic So Robustly Decidable? In Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models'96, pages 149-184. American Mathematical Society, 1996.
  61. M.Y. Vardi. Reasoning about The Past with Two-Way Automata. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming'98, LNCS 1443, pages 628-641. Springer, 1998.
  62. M.Y. Vardi and L.J. Stockmeyer. Improved Upper and Lower Bounds for Modal Logics of Programs: Preliminary Report. In ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing'85, pages 240- 251, 1985.
  63. M.Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. An Automata-Theoretic Approach to Automatic Program Verifica- tion. In IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science'86, pages 332-344. IEEE Computer Society, 1986.
  64. M.Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. Automata-Theoretic Techniques for Modal Logics of Programs. Journal of Computer and System Science, 32(2):183-221, 1986.
  65. H. Wang. Proving Theorems by Pattern Recognition II. Bell System Technical Journal, 40:1-41, 1961.
  66. F. Wang, C. Huang, and F. Yu. A Temporal Logic for the Interaction of Strategies. In CONCUR 2011, pages 466-481. Springer, 2011.
  67. Dirk Walther, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Michael Wooldridge. Alternating-Time Temporal Logic with Explicit Strategies. In TARK, pages 269-278, 2007.

Related papers

A Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic
Aniello Murano

arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.1309, 2012

Abstract: Strategy Logic (SL, for short) has been recently introduced by Mogavero, Murano, and Vardi as a useful formalism for reasoning explicitly about strategies, as first-order objects, in multi-agent concurrent games. This logic turns to be very powerful, subsuming all major previously studied modal logics for strategic reasoning, including ATL, ATL*, and the like. Unfortunately, due to its expressiveness, SL has a non-elementarily decidable model-checking problem and a highly undecidable satisfiability problem, specifically, $\ Sigma_ { ...

View PDFchevron_right
What Makes Atl* Decidable? A Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic
Aniello Murano

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2012

Strategy Logic (SL, for short) has been recently introduced by Mogavero, Murano, and Vardi as a formalism for reasoning explicitly about strategies, as first-order objects, in multi-agent concurrent games. This logic turns out to be very powerful, strictly subsuming all major previously studied modal logics for strategic reasoning, including ATL, ATL * , and the like. The price that one has to pay for the expressiveness of SL is the lack of important model-theoretic properties and an increased complexity of decision problems. In particular, SL does not have the bounded-tree model property and the related satisfiability problem is highly undecidable while for ATL * it is 2EXPTIME-COMPLETE. An obvious question that arises is then what makes ATL * decidable. Understanding this should enable us to identify decidable fragments of SL. We focus, in this work, on the limitation of ATL * to allow only one temporal goal for each strategic assertion and study the fragment of SL with the same restriction. Specifically, we introduce and study the syntactic fragment One-Goal Strategy Logic (SL[1G], for short), which consists of formulas in prenex normal form having a single temporal goal at a time for every strategy quantification of agents. We show that SL[1G] is strictly more expressive than ATL * . Our main result is that SL[1G] has the bounded tree-model property and its satisfiability problem is 2EXPTIME-COMPLETE, as it is for ATL * .

View PDFchevron_right
Satisfiability in Strategy Logic Can Be Easier than Model Checking
Erman Acar

Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

In the design of complex systems, model-checking and satisfiability arise as two prominent decision problems. While model-checking requires the designed system to be provided in advance, satisfiability allows to check if such a system even exists. With very few exceptions, the second problem turns out to be harder than the first one from a complexity-theoretic standpoint. In this paper, we investigate the connection between the two problems for a non-trivial fragment of Strategy Logic (SL, for short). SL extends LTL with first-order quantifications over strategies, thus allowing to explicitly reason about the strategic abilities of agents in a multi-agent system. Satisfiability for the full logic is known to be highly undecidable, while model-checking is non-elementary.The SL fragment we consider is obtained by preventing strategic quantifications within the scope of temporal operators. The resulting logic is quite powerful, still allowing to express important game-theoretic propert...

View PDFchevron_right
Strategy Logic with Simple Goals: Tractable Reasoning about Strategies
Aniello Murano

Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019

In this paper we introduce Strategy Logic with simple goals (SL[SG]), a fragment of Strategy Logic that strictly extends the well-known Alternating-time Temporal Logic ATL by introducing arbitrary quantification over the agents' strategies. Our motivation comes from game-theoretic applications, such as expressing Stackelberg equilibria in games, coercion in voting protocols, as well as module checking for simple goals. Most importantly, we prove that the model checking problem for SL[SG] is PTIME-complete, the same as ATL. Thus, the extra expressive power comes at no computational cost as far as verification is concerned.

View PDFchevron_right
Reasoning About Strategies: On the Model-Checking Problem
Moshe Vardi

2011

In open systems verification, to formally check for reliability, one needs an appropriate formalism to model the interaction between agents and express the correctness of the system no matter how the environment behaves. An important contribution in this context is given by modal logics for strategic ability, in the setting of multi-agent games, such as ATL, ATL\star, and the like. Recently, Chatterjee, Henzinger, and Piterman introduced Strategy Logic, which we denote here by CHP-SL, with the aim of getting a powerful framework for reasoning explicitly about strategies. CHP-SL is obtained by using first-order quantifications over strategies and has been investigated in the very specific setting of two-agents turned-based games, where a non-elementary model-checking algorithm has been provided. While CHP-SL is a very expressive logic, we claim that it does not fully capture the strategic aspects of multi-agent systems. In this paper, we introduce and study a more general strategy logic, denoted SL, for reasoning about strategies in multi-agent concurrent games. We prove that SL includes CHP-SL, while maintaining a decidable model-checking problem. In particular, the algorithm we propose is computationally not harder than the best one known for CHP-SL. Moreover, we prove that such a problem for SL is NonElementarySpace-hard. This negative result has spurred us to investigate here syntactic fragments of SL, strictly subsuming ATL\star, with the hope of obtaining an elementary model-checking problem. Among the others, we study the sublogics SL[NG], SL[BG], and SL[1G]. They encompass formulas in a special prenex normal form having, respectively, nested temporal goals, Boolean combinations of goals and, a single goal at a time. About these logics, we prove that the model-checking problem for SL[1G] is 2ExpTime-complete, thus not harder than the one for ATL\star.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Logical Methods in Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved