Refining and Delegating Strategic Ability in ATL

We propose extending Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL) by an operator <i refines-to G> F to express that agent i can distribute its powers to a set of sub-agents G in a way which satisfies ATL condition f on the strategic ability of the coalitions they may form, possibly together with others agents. We prove the decidability of model-checking of formulas whose subformulas with this operator as the main connective have the form ...<i_m refines-to G_m> f, with no further occurrences of this operator in f.Comment: In Proceedings SR 2014, arXiv:1404.041

The Complexity of Synthesizing Uniform Strategies

We investigate uniformity properties of strategies. These properties involve sets of plays in order to express useful constraints on strategies that are not \mu-calculus definable. Typically, we can state that a strategy is observation-based. We propose a formal language to specify uniformity properties, interpreted over two-player turn-based arenas equipped with a binary relation between plays. This way, we capture e.g. games with winning conditions expressible in epistemic temporal logic, whose underlying equivalence relation between plays reflects the observational capabilities of agents (for example, synchronous perfect recall). Our framework naturally generalizes many other situations from the literature. We establish that the problem of synthesizing strategies under uniformity constraints based on regular binary relations between plays is non-elementary complete.Comment: In Proceedings SR 2013, arXiv:1303.007

ATLsc with partial observation

Alternating-time temporal logic with strategy contexts (ATLsc) is a powerful formalism for expressing properties of multi-agent systems: it extends CTL with strategy quantifiers, offering a convenient way of expressing both collaboration and antagonism between several agents. Incomplete observation of the state space is a desirable feature in such a framework, but it quickly leads to undecidable verification problems. In this paper, we prove that uniform incomplete observation (where all players have the same observation) preserves decidability of the model-checking problem, even for very expressive logics such as ATLsc.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2015, arXiv:1509.0685

AGREEMENT OPTIONS FOR VALUE-BASED GROUP DECISION ON BUILDING SYSTEM SELECTION

This paper presents a conceptual model of agreement options on negotiation support to facilitate the solving of group choice decision making problems in civil engineering. Group decision in construction is very complicated since many parties involved. Where a number of stakeholders are involved in choosing a single alternative from a set of solution alternatives, there are different concern caused by differing preferences, experiences, and background. Such civil engineering solutions as alternatives are referred to as agreement options, this paper describes a process of group decision and negotiation on building system selection for highway guardrail by assuring safety to provide barrier. The decision consists of three alternatives solution, three stakeholders and ten criteria. Determination of the optimal solution is based on a game theory model of n-person general sum game with complete information that involves forming coalitions among stakeholders

An Abstract Framework for Non-Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning

[EN] In non-cooperative multi-agent planning environments, it is essential to have a system that enables the agents¿ strategic behavior. It is also important to consider all planning phases, i.e., goal allocation, strategic planning, and plan execution, in order to solve a complete problem. Currently, we have no evidence of the existence of any framework that brings together all these phases for non-cooperative multi-agent planning environments. In this work, an exhaustive study is made to identify existing approaches for the different phases as well as frameworks and different applicable techniques in each phase. Thus, an abstract framework that covers all the necessary phases to solve these types of problems is proposed. In addition, we provide a concrete instantiation of the abstract framework using different techniques to promote all the advantages that the framework can offer. A case study is also carried out to show an illustrative example of how to solve a non-cooperative multi-agent planning problem with the presented framework. This work aims to establish a base on which to implement all the necessary phases using the appropriate technologies in each of them and to solve complex problems in different domains of application for non-cooperative multi-agent planning settings.This work was partially funded by MINECO/FEDER RTI2018-095390-B-C31 project of the Spanish government. Jaume Jordan and Vicent Botti are funded by Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (UPV) PAID-06-18 project. Jaume Jordan is also funded by grant APOSTD/2018/010 of Generalitat Valenciana Fondo Social Europeo.Jordán, J.; Bajo, J.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2019). An Abstract Framework for Non-Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning. Applied Sciences. 9(23):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235180S118923De Weerdt, M., & Clement, B. (2009). Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 5(4), 345-355. doi:10.3233/mgs-2009-0133Dunne, P. E., Kraus, S., Manisterski, E., & Wooldridge, M. (2010). Solving coalitional resource games. Artificial Intelligence, 174(1), 20-50. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2009.09.005Torreño, A., Onaindia, E., Komenda, A., & Štolba, M. (2018). Cooperative Multi-Agent Planning. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(6), 1-32. doi:10.1145/3128584Fikes, R. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3-4), 189-208. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(71)90010-5Hoffmann, J., & Nebel, B. (2001). The FF Planning System: Fast Plan Generation Through Heuristic Search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14, 253-302. doi:10.1613/jair.855Dukeman, A., & Adams, J. A. (2017). Hybrid mission planning with coalition formation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 31(6), 1424-1466. doi:10.1007/s10458-017-9367-7Hadad, M., Kraus, S., Ben-Arroyo Hartman, I., & Rosenfeld, A. (2013). Group planning with time constraints. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 69(3), 243-291. doi:10.1007/s10472-013-9363-9Guo, Y., Pan, Q., Sun, Q., Zhao, C., Wang, D., & Feng, M. (2019). Cooperative Game-based Multi-Agent Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance*. 2019 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE). doi:10.1109/isie.2019.8781205v. Neumann, J. (1928). Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen, 100(1), 295-320. doi:10.1007/bf01448847Mookherjee, D., & Sopher, B. (1994). Learning Behavior in an Experimental Matching Pennies Game. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(1), 62-91. doi:10.1006/game.1994.1037Ochs, J. (1995). Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria: An Experimental Study. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 202-217. doi:10.1006/game.1995.1030Applegate, C., Elsaesser, C., & Sanborn, J. (1990). An architecture for adversarial planning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 20(1), 186-194. doi:10.1109/21.47820Sailer, F., Buro, M., & Lanctot, M. (2007). Adversarial Planning Through Strategy Simulation. 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games. doi:10.1109/cig.2007.368082Willmott, S., Richardson, J., Bundy, A., & Levine, J. (2001). Applying adversarial planning techniques to Go. Theoretical Computer Science, 252(1-2), 45-82. doi:10.1016/s0304-3975(00)00076-1Nau, D. S., Au, T. C., Ilghami, O., Kuter, U., Murdock, J. W., Wu, D., & Yaman, F. (2003). SHOP2: An HTN Planning System. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 379-404. doi:10.1613/jair.1141Knuth, D. E., & Moore, R. W. (1975). An analysis of alpha-beta pruning. Artificial Intelligence, 6(4), 293-326. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(75)90019-3Vickrey, W. (1961). COUNTERSPECULATION, AUCTIONS, AND COMPETITIVE SEALED TENDERS. The Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8-37. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.xClarke, E. H. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11(1), 17-33. doi:10.1007/bf01726210Groves, T. (1973). Incentives in Teams. Econometrica, 41(4), 617. doi:10.2307/1914085Savaux, J., Vion, J., Piechowiak, S., Mandiau, R., Matsui, T., Hirayama, K., … Silaghi, M. (2016). DisCSPs with Privacy Recast as Planning Problems for Self-Interested Agents. 2016 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI). doi:10.1109/wi.2016.0057Buzing, P., Mors, A. ter, Valk, J., & Witteveen, C. (2006). Coordinating Self-interested Planning Agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 12(2), 199-218. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-6104-4Ter Mors, A., & Witteveen, C. (s. f.). Coordinating Non Cooperative Planning Agents: Complexity Results. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology. doi:10.1109/iat.2005.60Hrnčíř, J., Rovatsos, M., & Jakob, M. (2015). Ridesharing on Timetabled Transport Services: A Multiagent Planning Approach. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19(1), 89-105. doi:10.1080/15472450.2014.941759Galuszka, A., & Swierniak, A. (2009). Planning in Multi-agent Environment Using Strips Representation and Non-cooperative Equilibrium Strategy. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 58(3-4), 239-251. doi:10.1007/s10846-009-9364-4Rosenthal, R. W. (1973). A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory, 2(1), 65-67. doi:10.1007/bf01737559Jordán, J., Torreño, A., de Weerdt, M., & Onaindia, E. (2017). A better-response strategy for self-interested planning agents. Applied Intelligence, 48(4), 1020-1040. doi:10.1007/s10489-017-1046-5Veloso, M., Muñoz-Avila, H., & Bergmann, R. (1996). Case-based planning: selected methods and systems. AI Communications, 9(3), 128-137. doi:10.3233/aic-1996-9305VOORNEVELD, M., BORM, P., VAN MEGEN, F., TIJS, S., & FACCHINI, G. (1999). CONGESTION GAMES AND POTENTIALS RECONSIDERED. International Game Theory Review, 01(03n04), 283-299. doi:10.1142/s0219198999000219Han-Lim Choi, Brunet, L., & How, J. P. (2009). Consensus-Based Decentralized Auctions for Robust Task Allocation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25(4), 912-926. doi:10.1109/tro.2009.2022423Monderer, D., & Shapley, L. S. (1996). Potential Games. Games and Economic Behavior, 14(1), 124-143. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0044Friedman, J. W., & Mezzetti, C. (2001). Learning in Games by Random Sampling. Journal of Economic Theory, 98(1), 55-84. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2694Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. AI Communications, 7(1), 39-59. doi:10.3233/aic-1994-7104Bertsekas, D. P. (1988). The auction algorithm: A distributed relaxation method for the assignment problem. Annals of Operations Research, 14(1), 105-123. doi:10.1007/bf02186476Bertsekas, D. P., & Castanon, D. A. (1989). The auction algorithm for the transportation problem. Annals of Operations Research, 20(1), 67-96. doi:10.1007/bf0221692

Solving Weighted Voting Game Design Problems Optimally: Representations, Synthesis, and Enumeration

We study the inverse power index problem for weighted voting games: the problem of finding a weighted voting game in which the power of the players is as close as possible to a certain target distribution. Our goal is to find algorithms that solve this problem exactly. Thereto, we study various subclasses of simple games, and their associated representation methods. We survey algorithms and impossibility results for the synthesis problem, i.e., converting a representation of a simple game into another representation. We contribute to the synthesis problem by showing that it is impossible to compute in polynomial time the list of ceiling coalitions of a game from its list of roof coalitions, and vice versa. Then, we proceed by studying the problem of enumerating the set of weighted voting games. We present first a naive algorithm for this, running in doubly exponential time. Using our knowledge of the

MsATL: a Tool for SAT-Based ATL Satisfiability Checking

We present MsATL: the first tool for deciding the satisfiability of Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL) with imperfect information. MsATL combines SAT Modulo Monotonic Theories solvers with existing ATL model checkers: MCMAS and STV. The tool can deal with various semantics of ATL, including perfect and imperfect information, and can handle additional practical requirements. MsATL can be applied for synthesis of games that conform to a given specification, with the synthesised game often being minimal