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

Changing Observations in Epistemic Temporal Logic

We study dynamic changes of agents' observational power in logics of knowledge and time. We consider CTL*K, the extension of CTL* with knowledge operators, and enrich it with a new operator that models a change in an agent's way of observing the system. We extend the classic semantics of knowledge for perfect-recall agents to account for changes of observation, and we show that this new operator strictly increases the expressivity of CTL*K. We reduce the model-checking problem for our logic to that for CTL*K, which is known to be decidable. This provides a solution to the model-checking problem for our logic, but its complexity is not optimal. Indeed we provide a direct decision procedure with better complexity

Multi-Player Games with LDL Goals over Finite Traces

Linear Dynamic Logic on finite traces LDLf is a powerful logic for reasoning about the behaviour of concurrent and multi-agent systems. In this paper, we investigate techniques for both the characterisation and verification of equilibria in multi-player games with goals/objectives expressed using logics based on LDLf. This study builds upon a generalisation of Boolean games, a logic-based game model of multi-agent systems where players have goals succinctly represented in a logical way. Because LDLf goals are considered, in the settings we study -- Reactive Modules games and iterated Boolean games with goals over finite traces -- players' goals can be defined to be regular properties while achieved in a finite, but arbitrarily large, trace. In particular, using alternating automata, the paper investigates automata-theoretic approaches to the characterisation and verification of (pure strategy Nash) equilibria, shows that the set of Nash equilibria in multi-player games with LDLf objectives is regular, and provides complexity results for the associated automata constructions

Decision Problems for Subclasses of Rational Relations over Finite and Infinite Words

We consider decision problems for relations over finite and infinite words defined by finite automata. We prove that the equivalence problem for binary deterministic rational relations over infinite words is undecidable in contrast to the case of finite words, where the problem is decidable. Furthermore, we show that it is decidable in doubly exponential time for an automatic relation over infinite words whether it is a recognizable relation. We also revisit this problem in the context of finite words and improve the complexity of the decision procedure to single exponential time. The procedure is based on a polynomial time regularity test for deterministic visibly pushdown automata, which is a result of independent interest.Comment: v1: 31 pages, submitted to DMTCS, extended version of the paper with the same title published in the conference proceedings of FCT 2017; v2: 32 pages, minor revision of v1 (DMTCS review process), results unchanged; v3: 32 pages, enabled hyperref for Figure 1; v4: 32 pages, add reference for known complexity results for the slenderness problem; v5: 32 pages, added DMTCS metadat

Logics for strategic reasoning and collective decision-making

Strategic decision-making is ubiquitous in everyday life. The analysis of game strategies has been a research theme in game theory for several decades since von Neumann and Morgenstern. Sophisticated models and analysis tools have been developed with wide applications in Economics, Management Science, Social Science and Computer Science, especially in the field of Artificial Intelligence. However, \much of game theory is about the question whether strategic equilibria exist", as Johan van Benthem, a world-leading logician and game-theorist, points out, \but there are hardly any explicit languages for defining, comparing, or combining strategies". Without such a facility it is challenging for computer scientists to build intelligent agents that are capable of strategic decision-making. In the last twenty years, logical approaches have been proposed to tackle this problem. Pioneering work includes Game Logics, Coalition Logic and Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL). These logics either provide facilities for expressing and combining games or offer mechanisms for reasoning about strategic abilities of players. But none of them can solve the problem. The intrinsic difficulty in establishing such a logic is that reasoning about strategies requires combinations of temporal reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, reasoning about actions, preferences and knowledge, as well as reasoning about multi-agent interactions and coalitional abilities. More recently, a few new logical formalisms have been proposed by extending ATL with strategy variables in order to express strategies explicitly. However, most of these logics tend to have high computational complexity, because ATL introduces quantifications over strategies (functions), which leaves little hope of building any tractable inference system based on such a logic. This thesis takes up the challenge by using a bottom-up approach in order to create a balance between expressive power and computational efficiency. Instead of starting with a highly complicated logic, we propose a set of logical frameworks based on a simple and practical logical language, called Game Description Language (GDL), which has been used as an official language for General Game Playing (GGP) since 2005. To represent game strategies, we extend GDL with two binary prioritized connectives for combining actions in terms of their priorities specified by these connectives, and provide it with a semantics based on the standard state transition model. To reason about the strategic abilities of players, we further extend the framework with coalition operators from ATL for specifying the strategic abilities of players. More importantly, a unified semantics is provided for both GDL- and ATL- formulas, which allows us to verify and reason about game strategies. Interestingly, the framework can be used to formalize the fundamental game-playing principles and formally derive two well-known results on two-player games: Weak Determinacy and Zermelo's Theorem. We also show that the model-checking problem of the logic is not worse than that of ATL*, an extension of ATL. To deal with imperfect information games, we extend GDL with the standard epistemic operators and provide it with a semantics based on the epistemic state transition model. The language allows us to specify an imperfect information game and formalize its epistemic properties. Meanwhile, the framework allows us to reason about players' own as well as other players' knowledge during game playing. Most importantly, the logic has a moderate computational complexity, which makes it significantly different from similar existing frameworks. To investigate the interplay between knowledge shared by a group of players and its coalitional abilities, we provide a variant of semantics for ATL with imperfect information. The relation between knowledge sharing and coalitional abilities is investigated through the interplay of epistemic and coalition modalities. Moreover, this semantics is able to preserve the desirable properties of coalitional abilities. To deal with collective decision-making, we apply the approach of combining actions via their priorities for collective choice. We extend propositional logic with the prioritized connective for modelling reason-based individual and collective choices. Not only individual preferences but also aggregation rules can be expressed within this logic. A model-checking algorithm for this logic is thus developed to automatically generate individual and collective choices. In many real-world situations, a group making collective judgments may assign individual members or subgroups different priorities to determine the collective judgment. We design an aggregation rule based on the priorities of individuals so as to investigate how the judgment from each individual affects group judgment in a hierarchical environment. We also show that this rule satisfies a set of plausible conditions and has a tractable computational complexity

Logics for strategic reasoning and collective decision-making

Cette thèse aborde le problème du raisonnement stratégique. Le raisonnement stratégique est un thème de recherches existant depuis e nombreuses années en théorie des jeux. Toutefois, celui-ci a le plus souvent pour objet de déterminer si des équilibres stratégiques existent sans détailler la définition en elle-même de ces stratégies. La construction d'agents artificiels capable de raisonner stratégiquement implique de se poser la question de la représentation de ces stratégies afin que les agents puissent les construire, combiner, comparer et enfin et surtout exécuter. Cette thèse propose un ensemble de logiques pour le raisonnement stratégique et la prise de décision collective. Elle établit dans un premier temps un cadre unifiée pour la définition de jeux, la représentation de stratégies et le raisonnement sur celles-ci dans le contexte des jeux à information parfaite. Ce cadre est ensuite étendu pour prendre en compte les jeux à information imparfaite. Les relations entre les connaissances de groupe, le pouvoir des coalitions ainsi que le partage d'informations dans une coalition sont ensuite étudiés. Dans un dernier temps, est introduit une logique modale permettant de de raisonner sur les choix collectifs, cette logique permet de généraliser les approches logiques existantes pour l'agrégation de jugements. La complexité de ces différents cadres logiques est aussi étudiée et nous montrons que ces différents cadres offre un équilibre pertinent entre efficacité computationnelle et pouvoir d'expression.This thesis proposes a set of logics for modelling strategic reasoning and collective decision-making. It first establishes a unified logical framework for game specifications, strategy representation and strategic reasoning in perfect information games. Based on that, it proposes an epistemic extension to address imperfect information games. To investigate the interplay of group knowledge and coalitional abilities, it further models knowledge sharing within coalitions. Finally it introduces a modal logic for collective choice and generalizes the logic-based approach to judgment aggregation. The complexity analysis of these logics indicates that these frameworks make a good balance between expressive power and computational efficiency