A STIT-Extension of ATL
A problem in many formalisms for reasoning about multi-agent systems, like ATL or PDL, is the inability to express that a certain complex action (as in PDL), choice or strategy (as in ATL) is performed by an agent. However, in so called STIT-logics, this is exactly the main operator: seeing to it that a certain condition is achieved. Here we present an extension of ATL, introducing ideas from STIT-theory, that can express that a group of agents A perform a certain strategy. As a demonstration of the applicability of the formalism, we show how it sheds new light on the problem of modelling ‘uniform strategies’ in epistemic versions of ATL.
KeywordsState Pair Railway Station Atomic Proposition Deontic Logic Epistemic Modality
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Belnap, N., Perloff, M.: Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives. In: Kyburg, H.E., Loui, R.P., Carlson, G.N. (eds.) Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pp. 167–190. Kluwer, Boston (1990)Google Scholar
- 5.Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing the future: agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
- 8.Müller, T.: On the formal structure of continuous action. In: Schmidt, R., Pratt-Hartmann, I., Reynolds, M., Wansing, H. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 5, pp. 191–209. King’s College Publications (2005)Google Scholar
- 9.Jamroga, W., Ågotnes, T.: Constructive knowledge: what agents can achieve under incomplete information. Technical Report IfI-05-10, Institute of Computer Science, Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld (2005)Google Scholar
- 10.Broersen, J., Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: From coalition logic to stit. In: Proceedings LCMAS 2005. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Jamroga, W., Hoek, W.v.d.: Agents that know how to play. Fundamenta Informaticae 63(2) (2004)Google Scholar
- 15.Neumann, J.v., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)Google Scholar