Reasoning about Knowledge and Strategies under Hierarchical Information

Two distinct semantics have been considered for knowledge in the context of strategic reasoning, depending on whether players know each other's strategy or not. The problem of distributed synthesis for epistemic temporal specifications is known to be undecidable for the latter semantics, already on systems with hierarchical information. However, for the other, uninformed semantics, the problem is decidable on such systems. In this work we generalise this result by introducing an epistemic extension of Strategy Logic with imperfect information. The semantics of knowledge operators is uninformed, and captures agents that can change observation power when they change strategies. We solve the model-checking problem on a class of "hierarchical instances", which provides a solution to a vast class of strategic problems with epistemic temporal specifications on hierarchical systems, such as distributed synthesis or rational synthesis

Group announcement logic

AbstractTwo currently active strands of research on logics for multi-agent systems are dynamic epistemic logic, focusing on the epistemic consequences of actions, and logics of coalitional ability, focusing on what coalitions of agents can achieve by cooperating strategically. In this paper we bridge these topics by considering the question: “what can a coalition achieve by making public announcements?”. We propose an extension of public announcement logic with constructs of the form 〈G〉ϕ, where G is a group of agents, with the intuitive meaning that G can jointly execute a publicly observable action such that ϕ will be true afterwards. Actions here are taken to be truthful public announcements, but turn out also to include sequences of such joint actions as well as protocols with alternating actions by different agents, in response to the actions of others. We also study in detail the difference between ‘knowing how’ (knowing de re) and ‘knowing that’ (knowing de dicto) in our framework: both can elegantly be expressed in the single-agent case. We present several meta-logical properties of this Group Announcement Logic, including a sound and complete axiomatization, expressivity and the complexity of model checking

Coalition and coalition announcement logic

Dynamic epistemic logics which model abilities of agents to make various announcements and influence each other’s knowledge have been studied extensively in recent years. Two notable examples of such logics are Group Announcement Logic and Coalition Announcement Logic. They allow us to reason about what groups of agents can achieve through joint announcements in non-competitive and competitive environments. In this paper, we consider a combination of these logics – Coalition and Group Announcement Logic and provide its complete axiomatisation. Moreover, we partially answer the question of how group and coalition announcement operators interact, and settle some other open problems

Coalition and Relativised Group Announcement Logic

There are several ways to quantify over public announcements. The most notable are reflected in arbitrary, group, and coalition announcement logics (APAL, GAL, and CAL correspondingly), with the latter being the least studied so far. In the present work, we consider coalition announcements through the lens of group announcements, and provide a complete axiomatisation of a logic with coalition announcements. To achieve this, we employ a generalisation of group announcements. Moreover, we study some logical properties of both coalition and group announcements that have not been studied before.acceptedVersio

No Finite Model Property for Logics of Quantified Announcements

Quantification over public announcements shifts the perspective from reasoning strictly about the results of a particular announcement to reasoning about the existence of an announcement that achieves some certain epistemic goal. Depending on the type of the quantification, we get differ- ent formalisms, the most known of which are arbitrary public announcement logic (APAL), group announcement logic (GAL), and coalition announcement logic (CAL). It has been an open question whether the logics have the finite model property, and in the paper we answer the question negatively. We also discuss how this result is connected to other open questions in the field.publishedVersio

Verification and Strategy Synthesis for Coalition Announcement Logic

Coalition announcement logic (CAL) is one of the family of the logics of quantified announcements. It allows us to reason about what a coalition of agents can achieve by making announcements in the setting where the anti-coalition may have an announcement of their own to preclude the former from reaching its epistemic goals. In this paper, we describe a PSPACE-complete model checking algorithm for CAL that produces winning strategies for coalitions. The algorithm is implemented in a proof-of-concept model checker.publishedVersio

Explicit Strategies and Quantification for ATL with Incomplete Information and Probabilistic Games

We introduce QAPI (quantified ATL with probabilism and incomplete information), an extension of ATL that provides a flexible mechanism to reason about strategies that can be identified and followed by agents that do not have complete information about the state of the system. QAPI allows reasoning about strategies directly in the object language, which allows to express complex strategic properties as equilibria. We show how several other logics can be expressed in QAPI, and provide suitable bisimulation relations, as well as complexity and decidability results for the model checking problem