Advertisement

A STIT-Extension of ATL

  • Jan Broersen
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Nicolas Troquard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4160)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

State Pair Railway Station Atomic Proposition Deontic Logic Epistemic Modality 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1997), pp. 100–109. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M.: Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives. Theoria 54, 175–199 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 5.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing the future: agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: Knowing How to Play: Uniform Choices in Logics of Agency. In: Weiss, G., Stone, P. (eds.) 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan, pp. 209–216. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Goranko, V., Jamroga, W.: Comparing semantics of logics for multi-agent systems. Synthese 139(2), 241–280 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pauly, M.: A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(1), 149–166 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jamroga, W., Hoek, W.v.d.: Agents that know how to play. Fundamenta Informaticae 63(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoek, W.v.d., Wooldridge, M.: Cooperation, knowledge, and time: Alternating-time temporal epistemic logic and its applications. Studia Logica 75(1), 125–157 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neumann, J.v., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chisholm, R.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wansing, H.: Obligations, authorities, and history dependence. In: Wansing, H. (ed.) Essays on Non-classical Logic, pp. 247–258. World Scientific, Singapore (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Broersen
    • 1
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 2
  • Nicolas Troquard
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht University 
  2. 2.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse 

Personalised recommendations