Abstract
As they are conventionally formulated, Boolean games assume that players make their choices in ignorance of the choices being made by other players – they are games of simultaneous moves. For many settings, this is clearly unrealistic. In this paper, we show how Boolean games can be enriched by dependency graphs which explicitly represent the informational dependencies between variables in a game. More precisely, dependency graphs play two roles. First, when we say that variable x depends on variable y, then we mean that when a strategy assigns a value to variable x, it can be informed by the value that has been assigned to y. Second, and as a consequence of the first property, they capture a richer and more plausible model of concurrency than the simultaneous-action model implicit in conventional Boolean games. Dependency graphs implicitly define a partial ordering of the run-time events in a game: if x is dependent on y, then the assignment of a value to y must precede the assignment of a value to x; if x and y are independent, however, then we can say nothing about the ordering of assignments to these variables—the assignments may occur concurrently. We refer to Boolean games with dependency graphs as partial-order Boolean games. After motivating and presenting the partial-order Boolean games model, we explore its properties. We show that while some problems associated with our new games have the same complexity as in conventional Boolean games, for others the complexity blows up dramatically. We also show that the concurrency in partial-order Boolean games can be modelled using a closure-operator semantics, and conclude by considering the relationship of our model to Independence-Friendly (IF) logic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A key observation is that in our partial-order Boolean game every strategy profile always renders two winners and only one loser.
References
Abramsky, S. (2003). Sequentiality vs. concurrency in games and logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 13(4), 531–565.
Abramsky, S. (2006). Socially responsive, environmentally friendly logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 78. Truth and Games: Essays in Honour of Gabriel Sandu
Abramsky, S., & Melliès, P.A. (1999). Concurrent games and full completeness. In LICS (pp. 431–442). IEEE Computer Society
Balabanov, V., Chiang, H. J., & Jiang, J. H. (2014). Henkin quantifers and Boolean formulae: A certification perspective of DQBF. Theoretical Computer Science, 523, 86–100.
Bonzon, E., Lagasquie, M., Lang, J., & Zanuttini, B. (2006) Boolean games revisited. In ECAI
Bonzon, E., Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C., & Lang, J. (2009). Dependencies between players in Boolean games. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50(6), 899–914.
Boppana, R. B., & Sipser, M. (1990). The complexity of finite functions. In A. V. Aho & M. J. Corasick (Eds.), Handbook of theoretical computer science volume A: Algorithms and complexity (pp. 757–804). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Bradfield, J. C. (2006). Independence: Logics and concurrency. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 78, 47–70. Truth and Games: Essays in Honour of Gabriel Sandu.
Clairambault, P., Gutierrez, J., & Winskel, G. (2012). The winning ways of concurrent games. In LICS (pp. 235–244) IEEE Computer Society
Clairambault, P., Gutierrez, J., & Winskel, G. (2013) Imperfect information in logic and concurrent games. In Computation, Logic, Games, and Quantum Foundations, LNCS, vol. 7860, (pp. 7–20). Springer
Cook, S., & Soltys, M. (1999). Boolean programs and quantified propositional proof systems. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 28(3), 119–129.
Dunne, P.E., Kraus, S., van der Hoek, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2008) Cooperative Boolean games. In AAMAS
Emerson, E. A. (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Handbook of theoretical computer science volume B: Formal models and semantics (pp. 996–1072). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2004). Automated planning: Theory and practice. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Godefroid, P. (1996). Partial-order methods for the verification of concurrent systems., Lecture Notes in Computer Science New York: Springer.
Grant, J., Kraus, S., Wooldridge, M., Zuckerman, I. (2011) Manipulating Boolean games through communication. In IJCAI
Gutierrez, J. (2011). Concurrent logic games on partial orders. In WoLLIC, LNCS, vol. 6642, (pp. 146–160). Springer
Gutierrez, J., & Wooldridge, M. (2014). Equilibria of concurrent games on event structures. In LNCS, ACM Press
Harrenstein, P., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J., & Witteveen, C. (2001) Boolean games. In TARK, (pp. 287–298)
Hearn, R. A., & Demaine, E. D. (2009). Games, puzzles, & computation. Wellesley, MA: A. K. Peters Ltd.
Henkin, L. (1961). Some remarks on infinitely long formulas. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 30(1), 167–183.
Jurdziński, M., Nielsen, M., & Srba, J. (2003). Undecidability of domino games and hhp-bisimilarity. Information and Computation, 184(2), 343–368.
Koller, D., & Milch, B. (2003). Multi-agent influence diagrams for representing and solving games. Games and Economic Behavior, 45(1), 181–221.
Mann, A. L., Sandu, G., & Sevenster, M. (2011). IIndependence-friendly logic. A game-theoretic approach., LMS Lecture Note Series Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manna, Z., & Pnueli, A. (1992). The temporal logic of reactive and concurrent systems. Berlin: Springer.
Mavronicolas, M., Monien, B., & Wagner, K.W. (2007). Weighted Boolean formula games. In WINE (pp. 469–481)
Melliès, P. A., & Mimram, S. (2007). Asynchronous games: Innocence without alternation (pp. 395–411)., CONCUR, LNCS Heidelberg: Springer.
Nielsen, M., & Winskel, G. (1995). Models for concurrency. In Handbook of logic in computer science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England
Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pauly, M. (2001). Logic for social software. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam
Peterson, G. L., Reif, J. H., & Azhar, S. (2001). Lower bounds for multiplayer noncooperative games of incomplete information. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 41, 957–992.
Saraswat, V.A., Rinard, M.C., & Panangaden, P. (1991) Semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming. In POPL (pp. 333–352). ACM Press
Winskel, G. (2012). Deterministic concurrent strategies. Formal Aspects of Computing, 24(4–6), 647–660.
Wooldridge, M., Endriss, U., Kraus, S., & Lang, J. (2013). Incentive engineering for Boolean games. Artificial Intelligence, 195, 418–439.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bradfield, J., Gutierrez, J. & Wooldridge, M. Partial-order Boolean games: informational independence in a logic-based model of strategic interaction. Synthese 193, 781–811 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0991-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0991-y