Multi-agency Is Coordination and (Limited) Communication

  • Piotr Kaźmierczak
  • Thomas Ågotnes
  • Wojciech Jamroga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8861)


Systems within the agent-oriented paradigm range from ones where a single agent is coupled with an environment to ones inhabited by a large number of autonomous entities. In this paper, we look at what distinguishes single-agent systems from multi-agent systems. We claim that multi-agency implies limited coordination, in terms of action and/or information. If a team is characterized by full coordination both on the level of action choice and the available information, then we may as well see the team as a single agent in disguise. To back the claim formally, we consider a variant of Alternating-time Temporal Logic atl where each coalition operates with a single indistinguishability relation. For this variant, we propose a truth-preserving translation of formulas and models in the syntactic fragment of atl where only singleton coalitions are allowed. In consequence, we show that assuming unified view of the world on part of each coalition reduces the full language of atl to its single-agent fragment when a model is given.


Multiagent System Imperfect Information Atomic Proposition Epistemic Logic Perfect Recall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T.: Action and knowledge in alternating-time temporal logic. Synthese 149(2), 377–409 (2006); Section on Knowledge, Rationality and ActionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ågotnes, T., Goranko, V., Jamroga, W.: Alternating-time temporal logics with irrevocable strategies. In: Samet, D. (ed.) Proceedings of TARK XI, pp. 15–24 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alechina, N., Logan, B., Nguyen, H.N., Rakib, A.: Resource-bounded alternating-time temporal logic. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 481–488 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time Temporal Logic. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 100–109. IEEE Computer Society Press (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time Temporal Logic. Journal of the ACM 49, 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brihaye, T., Da Costa, A., Laroussinie, F., Markey, N.: ATL with strategy contexts and bounded memory. In: Artemov, S., Nerode, A. (eds.) LFCS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5407, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bulling, N., Dix, J.: Modelling and verifying coalitions using argumentation and ATL. Inteligencia Artificial, Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial 14(46), 45–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bulling, N., Farwer, B.: On the (un-)decidability of model checking resource-bounded agents. In: Proceedings of ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 567–572. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Piterman, N.: Strategy logic. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 59–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diaconu, R., Dima, C.: Model-checking alternating-time temporal logic with strategies based on common knowledge is undecidable. Applied Artificial Intelligence 26(4), 331–348 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dima, C., Enea, C., Guelev, D.: Model-checking an alternating-time temporal logic with knowledge, imperfect information, perfect recall and communicating coalitions. In: Proceedings of GANDALF, pp. 103–117 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dima, C., Tiplea, F.: Model-checking atl under imperfect information and perfect recall semantics is undecidable. CoRR, abs/1102.4225 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guelev, D.P., Dima, C.: Model-checking strategic ability and knowledge of the past of communicating coalitions. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 75–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guelev, D., Dima, C., Enea, C.: An alternating-time temporal logic with knowledge, perfect recall and past: axiomatisation and model-checking. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 21(1), 93–131 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jamroga, W.: A temporal logic for stochastic multi-agent systems. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) PRIMA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357, pp. 239–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamroga, W., Ågotnes, T.: Constructive knowledge: What agents can achieve under incomplete information. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17(4), 423–475 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jamroga, W., Murano, A.: On module checking and strategies. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS 2014, pp. 701–708 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamroga, W., van der Hoek, W.: Agents that know how to play. Fundamenta Informaticae 63(2–3), 185–219 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Raimondi, F.: MCMAS: A model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 682–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pilecki, J., Bednarczyk, M., Jamroga, W.: Synthesis and verification of uniform strategies for multi-agent systems. In: Bulling, N., van der Torre, L., Villata, S., Jamroga, W., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) CLIMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8624, pp. 166–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schnoor, H.: Strategic planning for probabilistic games with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2010, pp. 1057–1064 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schobbens, P.Y.: Alternating-time logic with imperfect recall. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 85(2), 82–93 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: A logic for strategic reasoning. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2005, pp. 157–164 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Cooperation, knowledge and time: Alternating-time Temporal Epistemic Logic and its applications. Studia Logica 75(1), 125–157 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Otterloo, S., Jonker, G.: On Epistemic Temporal Strategic Logic. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 126, 77–92 (2004); Proceedings of LCMAS 2004Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Otterloo, S., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Preferences in game logics. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2004, pp. 152–159 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walther, D., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Alternating-time temporal logic with explicit strategies. In: Samet, D. (ed.) Proceedings TARK XI, pp. 269–278. Presses Universitaires de Louvain (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multi Agent Systems. John Wiley & Sons (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piotr Kaźmierczak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Ågotnes
    • 2
  • Wojciech Jamroga
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computing, Mathematics and PhysicsBergen University CollegeBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Computer Science and Communication, and Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and TrustUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg
  4. 4.Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations