Abstract
Alternating-time temporal logics (ATL/ATL*) represent a family of modal logics for reasoning about agents' strategic abilities in multiagent systems (MAS). The interpretations of ATL/ATL* over the semantic model Concurrent Game Structures (CGS) usually vary depending on the agents' abilities, for instance, perfect vs. imperfect information, perfect vs. imperfect recall, resulting in a variety of variants which have been studied extensively in literature. However, they are defined at the semantic level, which may limit modeling flexibilities and may give counter-intuitive interpretations. To mitigate these issues, in this work, we propose to extend CGS with agents' abilities and study the new semantics of ATL/ATL* under this model. We give PSACE/2EXPTIME model-checking algorithms for ATL/ATL* and implement them as a prototype tool. Experiment results show the practical feasibility of the approach.
Highlights
Multiagent systems (MAS) consisting of multiple autonomous agents are a wide adopted paradigm of intelligent systems
We show that in general the new semantics of ATL/ATL∗ over Augmented Concurrent Game Structures (ACGS) is incomparable with others even if the underlying concurrent game structures (CGS) models are the same
We introduced an extension of standard CGS model, i.e. ACGS, which define agents’ abilities at the syntactic level of the system model
Summary
Multiagent systems (MAS) consisting of multiple autonomous agents are a wide adopted paradigm of intelligent systems. A series of extensions of ATL-like logics have been studied which take different agents’ abilities into account These abilities typically include whether the agents can identify the current state of the system completely or only partially (perfect vs imperfect information), and whether the agents can memorize the whole history of observations or part of them (perfect vs imperfect recall). If the coalition modalities are nested, the same agent may have different abilities to fulfill the objectives specified in different sub-formulae, which results in inconsistency This phenomenon has been mentioned in [Mogavero et al, 2014; Cermak et al, 2014] which proposed a strategic logic does make explicit references to strategies of all agents including those not in A. The source code of our tool is available at [MCMAS-ACGS, 2018] which includes some further experiments and comparison of ATL/ATL∗ semantics between CGS and ACGS
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
