Abstract
Synthesis is the automated construction of a system from its specification. The system has to satisfy its specification in all possible environments. The environment often consists of agents that have objectives of their own. Thus, it makes sense to soften the universal quantification on the behavior of the environment and take the objectives of its underlying agents into an account. Fisman et al. introduced rational synthesis: the problem of synthesis in the context of rational agents. The input to the problem consists of temporal logic formulas specifying the objectives of the system and the agents that constitute the environment, and a solution concept (e.g., Nash equilibrium). The output is a profile of strategies, for the system and the agents, such that the objective of the system is satisfied in the computation that is the outcome of the strategies, and the profile is stable according to the solution concept; that is, the agents that constitute the environment have no incentive to deviate from the strategies suggested to them. In this paper we continue to study rational synthesis. First, we suggest an alternative definition to rational synthesis, in which the agents are rational but not cooperative. We call such problem strong rational synthesis. In the strong rational synthesis setting, one cannot assume that the agents that constitute the environment take into account the strategies suggested to them. Accordingly, the output is a strategy for the system only, and the objective of the system has to be satisfied in all the compositions that are the outcome of a stable profile in which the system follows this strategy. We show that strong rational synthesis is 2ExpTime-complete, thus it is not more complex than traditional synthesis or rational synthesis. Second, we study a richer specification formalism, where the objectives of the system and the agents are not Boolean but quantitative. In this setting, the objective of the system and the agents is to maximize their outcome. The quantitative setting significantly extends the scope of rational synthesis, making the game-theoretic approach much more relevant. Finally, we enrich the setting to one that allows coalitions of agents that constitute the system or the environment.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abraham, I., Dolev, D., Gonen, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Distributed Computing Meets Game Theory: Robust Mechanisms for Rational Secret Sharing and Multiparty Computation. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2006, Denver, CO, USA, July 23-26, 2006, pp. 53–62 (2006), doi:10.1145/1146381.1146393
Almagor, S., Boker, U., Kupferman, O.: Formalizing and reasoning about quality. In: ICALP’13, LNCS, vol. 7966, pp. 15–27 (2013)
Almagor, S., Boker, U., Kupferman, O.: Discounting in LTL. In: TACAS’14, LNCS, vol. 8413, pp. 424–439. Springer (2014)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-Time Temporal logic. JACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)
Aumann, R.J.: Acceptable points in general cooperative n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games 4, 287–324 (1959)
Bloem, R., Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T., Jobstmann, B.: Better quality in synthesis through quantitative objectives. In: CAV’09, LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 140–156. Springer (2009)
Bouyer, P., Brenguier, R., Markey, N., Ummels, M.: Pure Nash equilibria in concurrent games. In: Logical Methods in Computer Science. To appear (2015)
Brenguier, R., Raskin, J.F., Sankur, O.: Assume-admissible synthesis. In: CONCUR ’15, pp. 100–113 (2015)
Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T., Jobstmann, B.: Environment Assumptions for Synthesis. In: CONCUR’08, LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 147–161. Springer (2008)
Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T., Piterman, N.: Strategy Logic. In: CONCUR’07, LNCS 4703, pp. 59–73. Springer (2007)
Chatterjee, K., Majumdar, R., Jurdzinski, M.: On Nash Equilibria in Stochastic Games. In: CSL, LNCS, vol. 3210, pp. 26–40. Springer (2004)
Church, A.: Logic, arithmetics, and automata. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, pp. 23–35. Institut Mittag-Leffler (1963)
Courcoubetis, C., Yannakakis, M.: Markov decision processes and regular events. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 43(10), 1399–1418 (1998)
Fisman, D., Kupferman, O., Lustig, Y.: Rational Synthesis. In: TACAS’10, LNCS 6015, pp. 190–204. Springer (2010)
Halpern, J.Y.: Beyond Nash equilibrium: solution concepts for the 21st Century. In: Gamesec, pp. 1–3 (2011)
Henzinger, T.: From boolean to quantitative notions of correctness. In: POPL’10, pp. 157–158. ACM (2010)
Kupferman, O., Perelli, G., Vardi, M.Y.: Synthesis with rational environments. In: EUMAS’14, pp. 219–235 (2014), doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17130-2_15
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Church’s problem revisited. Bull. Symb. Log. 5(2), 245–263 (1999)
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems - Specification. Springer (1992)
Mogavero, F., Murano, A., Perelli, G., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about strategies: on the Model-Checking problem. TOCL 15(4) (2014). doi:10.1145/2631917
Mogavero, F., Murano, A., Perelli, G., Vardi, M.Y.: What Makes ATL* Decidable? a Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic. In: CONCUR’12, LNCS, vol. 7454, pp. 193–208 (2012)
Mogavero, F., Murano, A., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about Strategies. In: FSTTCS’10, LIPIcs 8, pp. 133–144 (2010)
Nisan, N., Ronen, A.: Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior 35(1-2), 166–196 (2001)
Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., Vazirani, V.: Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press (2007)
Osborne, M., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press (1994)
Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the Synthesis of a Reactive Module. In: POPL’89, pp. 179–190 (1989)
Selten, R.: Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. Int. J. Game Theory 4(1), 25–55 (1975)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement 278410, by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 1229/10), and by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (grant 2010431).
Work partially done when the author was a Ph.D. student at the Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II and while visiting Rice University. Research partially supported by the ERC Advanced Grant RACE (291528) at Oxford.
NSF Expeditions in Computing project “ExCAPE: Expeditions in Computer Augmented Program Engineering
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Kupferman, O., Perelli, G. & Vardi, M.Y. Synthesis with rational environments. Ann Math Artif Intell 78, 3–20 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-016-9508-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-016-9508-8