Valentin Goranko Stockholm University. ESSLLI 2018 August 6-10, of 33
|
|
- Leon Luke Adams
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ESSLLI 2018 course Logics for Epistemic and Strategic Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems Lecture 4: Logics for temporal strategic reasoning with complete information Valentin Goranko Stockholm University ESSLLI 2018 August 6-10, 2018 Sofia University, Bulgaria 1 of 33
2 Outline of the lecture The logics of temporal coalitional strategic reasoning ATL/ATL* Logical decision problems for ATL: model checking. Logical decision problems for ATL: satisfiability and model building. Nesting of strategic operators Revocability of strategies. Strategy contexts. 2 of 33
3 The multi-agent logic of strategic reasoning ATL(*) Alternating-time Temporal Logic ATL(*): introduced by Alur, Henzinger, and Kupferman, during Extends propositional logic PL with: Temporal operators: X (next time), G (forever), U (until) Coalitional strategic path operators: A for any group of agents A. Formulae of the full logic ATL : ϕ := p ϕ ϕ 1 ϕ 2 A ϕ X ϕ Gϕ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 Formulae of the fragment ATL: ϕ := p ϕ ϕ 1 ϕ 2 A X ϕ A Gϕ A ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 Remark: the computation tree logic CTL(*) can be regarded as a fragment of ATL(*), where: - the existential path quantifier E is identified with A, - the universal path quantifier A is identified with. One agent suffices. 3 of 33
4 Semantics of ATL intuitively A ϕ: The coalition A has a joint strategy to guarantee the satisfaction of the goal ϕ on every play enabled by that strategy. In particular: A X ϕ: The coalition A has a joint action that ensures an outcome (state) satisfying ϕ (This is exactly [A] ϕ in CL.) A Gϕ: The coalition A has a joint strategy to maintain forever outcomes satisfying ϕ, A ψ U ϕ: The coalition A has a joint strategy to eventually reach an outcome satisfying ϕ, while meanwhile maintaining the truth of ψ. Definable operators: A Fϕ := A U ϕ, meaning The coalition A has a joint strategy to eventually reach an outcome satisfying ϕ. [[A]] ϕ := A ϕ, meaning: The coalition A cannot prevent the satisfaction of ϕ. 4 of 33
5 Expressing properties in ATL: some examples Agent F Safe [[Environment]] F Safe If the agent has a strategy to eventually get the system into a safe state, then the environment cannot prevent the agent from reaching a safe state. ( I G Honest I F Rich) I (Honest U Rich) If I have a strategy to remain honest forever and I have a strategy to eventually become rich, then I have a strategy to remain honest until I become rich. ( Agent1 G Safe Agent2 F Goal) Agent1, Agent2 (Safe U Goal) If Agent 1 has a strategy to keep the system in safe states forever and Agent 2 has a strategy to eventually reach Goal, then Agent 1 and Agent 2 have a joint strategy to keep the system in safe states until Goal is reached. A F B G ϕ The coalition A has a joint strategy to eventually ensure that the coalition B cannot prevent ϕ from happening eventually. 5 of 33
6 Plays, Computations and Strategies Given a CGM M = A, St, Act, act, out, Prop, L and a state s St: A state s in M is a successor of the state s if there is an action profile (σ 1,..., σ n ) such that out(s; σ 1,..., σ n ) = s. The set of successors of s: succ(s). A s-play in M: an infinite sequence s 0, s 1,..., such that s 0 = s and s i+1 succ(s i ) for every i 0. A (perfect recall) strategy in M for an agent i N: a mapping f i : St + Act that assigns to every sequence of states s 0,..., s n an action f i ( s 0,..., s n ) act(s n, i). If the strategy only depends on the current state, it is a no recall (memoryless, positional) strategy. A joint strategy in M for a set of agents A: a family of strategies F A = {f i } i A. A joint strategy F A enables a play λ if that play can occur as a result of the players in A following their strategies in F A. 6 of 33
7 ATL semantics: formally Truth of a formula ψ at a state s of a CGM M: M, s ψ Defined by structural induction on formulae, via the clauses: M, s A X ϕ iff there exists a joint strategy F A = {f i } i A such that M, s 1 ϕ for every s-play s, s 1,... enabled by F A. M, s A Gϕ iff there exists a joint strategy F A = {f i } i A such that M, s i ϕ for every s-play s, s 1,... enabled by F A and i 0. M, s A ϕ U ψ iff there exists a joint strategy F A = {f i } i A such that for every s-play s, s 1,... enabled by F A there is i 0 for which M, s i ψ and for all j such that 0 j < i, M, s j ϕ. NB: For the semantics of ATL memoryless strategies suffice. 7 of 33
8 Deciding the truth of ATL formulae in a CGM: examples (wait,wait) (push,push) (push,wait) s 0 (push,wait) (wait,wait) (push,push) (wait, (wait, s 2 push) push) s 1 (wait,push) (wait,wait) (push,push) (wait,wait) (push,wait) (push,park) (park,push) (wait,park) (park,wait) s 4 s 3 (wait,wait) M, s 0? = Yin F pos3 No M, s 0? = Yin G (pos3 pos 4 ) Yes M, s 0? = Yin, Yang (( pos1 ) U pos 4 ) Yes. M, s 0? = Yin F Yang F pos4 No M, s 0? = Yin, Yang G( pos1 Yin, Yang X pos 1 ) Yes. 8 of 33
9 Deciding the truth of ATL formulae: exercises Two agents: 1 and 2. Two types of actions: a, b. (b,a) s 2 {p,q} (a,a) (a,b) s 3 {q} (a,a) (b,b) (b,b) (b,a) (b,b) (a,b) (b,a) s 1 {p} (a,a) (a,b) (a,a)(a,b)(b,b) s 4 {} (b,a) M, s 1? = 1 Fq 2 G q No M, s1? = 1 Gp 2 Gp No?? M, s 3 = F 2 X p Yes M, s2 = 1 G 1, 2 ( qup) Yes 9 of 33
10 (Addendum) Detectives and fugitives puzzles A fugitive is trying to run away from a detective, who is trying to catch the fugitive. There are N caves arranged in a line and the fugitive is hiding in one of them. Every midnight the fugitive must move from the current cave to one of the neighbouring caves. Every day the detective inspects one of the caves, of his choice. The detective can only catch the fugitive if he is in the inspected cave. 1. Model the scenario for a given N with a CGM M N. (Hint: assume that the fugitive and the detective are moving from one cave to another simultaneously.) 2. Does the detective have a strategy to eventually catch the fugitive, no matter where he is initially, if: N = 4? N = 5? N > 5? In each case: if not, why? If yes, what is the least number of moves within which the strategy is guaranteed to succeed? 3. Same questions, if every time the fugitive has the choice to either remain in the same cave or move to a neighbouring cave. 4. Same questions, if the caves are not arranged linearly, but are at the vertices of any neighbourhood graph. 5. Same questions, if two detectives work as a team. 10 of 33
11 Extending the semantics of ATL* Two types of formulae in ATL*: State formulae ϕ ::= p ϕ ϕ ϕ A γ, where A A and p Prop. Path formulae: γ ::= ϕ γ γ γ X γ Gγ γ U γ The semantics of state formulae: as in ATL. The semantics of path formulae: defined on paths (plays), as in LTL. ATL* is much more expressive and has more complex semantics. Strategies generally need memory. Example: a (Fp Fq). Nesting of strategic operators causes higher complexity and also some problems with the semantics. 11 of 33
12 Validity and satisfiability in ATL An ATL formula φ is: (logically) valid if M, s φ for every CGM M and a state s M. satisfiable if M, s φ for some CGM M and a state s M. 12 of 33
13 Axiomatizing the validities of ATL: local axioms Recall Pauly s axiomatization of CL, extending the classical propositional logic with the following axioms and rule: A-Maximality: X ϕ A X ϕ Safety: C X Liveness: C X Superadditivity: for any C 1, C 2 A such that C 1 C 2 = : ( C 1 X ϕ 1 C 2 X ϕ 2 ) C 1 C 2 X (ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ) C X -Monotonicity Rule: ϕ 1 ϕ 2 C X ϕ 1 C X ϕ 2 13 of 33
14 Axiomatizing the validities of ATL: fixpoint axioms The axiomatization of ATL extends to one for CL with the following fixed point axioms and rules for G and U : (FP G ) C Gϕ ϕ C X C Gϕ. (GFP G ) G(θ (ϕ C X θ)) G(θ C Gϕ), (FP U ) C ψ U ϕ ϕ (ψ C X C ψ U ϕ), (LFP U ) G((ϕ (ψ C X θ)) θ) G( C ψ U ϕ θ), plus the rule G-Necessitation: ϕ Gϕ. Completeness: VG and G. van Drimmelen (TCS 2006). 14 of 33
15 Solving the logical decision problems for ATL 15 of 33
16 Logical decision problems in ATL Local model checking: given an ATL formula ψ, a finite CGM M and a state s M, determine whether M, s ψ. Global model checking: given an ATL formula ψ and a finite CGM M, determine the set ψ M of states in M where ψ is true. Used for automated verification of formal specifications in open and multi-agent systems and synthesis of strategies and protocols. Satisfiability testing: given an ATL formula ψ, determine whether ψ is satisfiable, i.e., whether M, s ψ for some CGM M and a state s M. Constructive satisfiability testing: given an ATL formula ψ, determine whether ψ is satisfiable, and if so, construct a CGM M and a state s M such that M, s ψ. Used for synthesis of multi-agent systems and controllers from formal specifications. 16 of 33
17 Solving the model checking problem for ATL Alur, Henzinger, and Kupferman [JACM 2002] extend the labeling algorithm for global model checking for CTL to ATL and show that the model checking of ATL is PTIME-complete. The algorithm will be presented here. 17 of 33
18 The operator Pre recalled Consider a CGM M = A, St, Act, act, out, Prop, L Given a coalition C A, a state s, and a set X St, we say that C is effective for X at s, if C has a joint action at s that guarantees the outcome to be in X, no matter how the remaining agents act at s. We define Pre(M, C, X ) as the set of states at which the coalition C is effective for X. Formally: Pre(M, C, X ) := {s St α C α A\C out(s, α C, α A\C ) X } where α C denotes a tuple of actions, one for each agent in C. In particular, for a formula ϕ, Pre(M, C, ϕ M ) is precisely C X ϕ M. 18 of 33
19 The temporal operators as fixed points: C G The validity C Gϕ ϕ C X C Gϕ means that C Gϕ M is a fixed point of the operator G C,ϕ (Z) := ϕ M Pre(M, C, Z) The validity G(θ (ϕ C X θ)) G(θ C Gϕ) means that C Gϕ M is the greatest (post)-fixed point of G C,ϕ. Therefore: C Gϕ M can be computed by starting from Z = St and iteratively applying G C,ϕ until stabilization. It suffices to reach a stage where Z G C,ϕ (Z). Then G C,ϕ (Z) = Z will hold. 19 of 33
20 The temporal operators as fixed points: C U The validity C ψ U ϕ ϕ (ψ C X C ψ U ϕ) means that C ψ U ϕ M is a fixed point of the operator U C,ϕ,ψ (Z) := ϕ M ( ψ M Pre(M, C, Z)) The validity G((ϕ (ψ C X θ)) θ) G( C ψ U ϕ θ) means that C ψ U ϕ M is the least (pre)-fixed point of U C,ϕ,ψ. Therefore: C ψ U ϕ M can be computed by starting from Z = and iteratively applying U C,ϕ,ψ until stabilization. It suffices to reach a stage where U C,ϕ,ψ (Z) Z. Then U C,ϕ,ψ (Z) = Z will hold. 20 of 33
21 Algorithm for global model checking of ATL formulae 1: procedure GlobalMC(ATL)(M, ϕ) 2: case ϕ = p Prop : return {s St p L(s)} 3: case ϕ = ψ : return S \ ψ M 4: case ϕ = ψ 1 ψ 2 : return ψ 1 M ψ 2 M 5: case ϕ = A X ψ : return Pre(M, A, ψ M ) 6: case ϕ = A Gψ: ρ St; τ ψ M ; 7: while ρ τ do 8: ρ τ; τ Pre(M, A, ρ) ψ M 9: end while; return ρ 10: end case 11: case ϕ = A ψ 1 U ψ 2 : ρ ; τ ψ 2 M ; 12: while τ ρ do 13: ρ τ; τ ψ 2 M (Pre(M, A, ρ) ψ 1 M ) 14: end while; return ρ 15: end case 16: end procedure 21 of 33
22 Global model checking of ATL formulae: exercises (b,a) s 2 {p,q} (a,a) (a,b) s 3 {q} (a,a) (b,b) (b,b) (b,a) (b,b) (a,b) (b,a) s 1 {p} 1 Gp M = {s 1, s 2 } (a,a) (a,b) (a,a)(a,b)(b,b) s 4 {} (b,a) 2 Gp M = ( qup) M = {s 1, s 2 } 2 ( qup) M = {s 1, s 2, s 4 } 1 G 2 ( qup) M = {s 1, s 2, s 4 } 22 of 33
23 On model checking fair ATL and ATL* Alur, Henzinger, and Kupferman [JACM 2002] extend the model checking method for ATL to Fair ATL (ATL with fairness constraints) and to the full ATL and show that: - model checking of Fair ATL is PSPACE-complete - model-checking ATL is 2EXPTIME-complete (even in the special case of turn-based synchronous models). Furthermore, under assumptions of incomplete information and perfect memory, model checking of ATL becomes undecidable. 23 of 33
24 Solving the satisfiability problem for ATL and ATL* van Drimmelen [LICS 2003]: decidability (in EXPTIME) of the satisfiability problem (SAT) in ATL. See also VG and van Drimmelen [TCS 2006] for an algorithm for deciding SAT by employing alternating tree automata and bounding-branching model property. VG and Shkatov [ToCL 2010]: constructive and practically usable tableau-based method for deciding for ATL in EXPTIME. Implemented in 2013 by Amélie David at Univ. d Evry Val d Essonne EXPTIME lower bound for this problem comes from SAT for CTL. Hence, the EXPTIME-completeness of the problem. Schewe [ICALP 2008]: SAT for ATL is 2EXPTIME-complete. VG and Vester [AiML 2014]: lower complexities for satisfiability in flat fragments of ATL*. 24 of 33
25 Nesting of strategic operators Revocability of strategies Strategy contexts 25 of 33
26 Nesting strategies in the semantics of ATL (*): a problem? How to interpret intuitively nesting of strategic operators in ATL? E.g., what exactly does i X j ϕ mean? How about i G i ϕ? A strategy is a global conditional plan. So, is a formula like i G(ϕ i F ϕ) intuitively satisfiable? NB: when evaluating the goal Φ in a formula C Φ in a given CGM, the agents in C are no longer restricted by the strategy chosen for C to justify the truth of C Φ. I.e, the compositional semantics is opportunistic. Like in: These are my principles! If you do not like them... I can change them! (Attributed to Groucho Marx) 26 of 33
27 Nesting of strategies in the semantics of ATL: example Example: model M with a single agent: a b a q1 q2 q3 a not p p not p M, q 1 = i X p: at q 1 the agent i can achieve p in the next state. M, q 1 = i G i X p: at q 1 the agent i can make sure that she can always achieve p in the next state, but only by never achieving p. E.g., a bachelor has the strategy to always be able to marry tomorrow any girl he meets, but only if he stays unmarried forever. Thus: M, q 1 = i G( p i X p). 27 of 33
28 Nesting of coalitional strategic operators Consider the following claim, in the standard semantics for ATL: M, q = 1, 2 F 2, 3 Gp. This means that the agents 1, 2 have a collective strategy s 1, s 2 such that on every computation λ in M compatible with that strategy there is a state λ[n] such that M, λ[n] = 2, 3 Gp. However, the collective strategy s 1, s 2 does not feature in the evaluation of 2, 3 Gp at the state λ[n] in M. To justify the truth of 2, 3 Gp, any collective strategy t 2, t 3 for the agents 2, 3 can be selected, even though the strategy t 2 may deviate from the earlier chosen strategy s 2 for agent 2. Moreover, the effect of strategy s 1 is no longer taken into account when evaluating the truth of 2, 3 Gp. Even worse in ATL*, where e.g. A B γ B γ for any coalitions A, B. 28 of 33
29 Revocability and commitment of strategies What does having a strategy to achieve a (complex) goal mean exactly? Does it involve commitment? Can a strategy involve its own revocability? Can one commit not to commit? Some possible solutions: [Ågotnes,VG,Jamroga, TARK 07]:ATL with irrevocable strategies The idea: once chosen, strategies become irrevocable throughout the entire evaluation of the formula. The price: Imposes unnecessarily strong commitments when the goals are local (next-state) goals or eventualities. Yields a non-compositional semantics. A more flexible solution: mechanisms for dynamic strategic commitment and release. [ Ågotnes, VG, Jamroga, LOFT 08]. Also, Brihaye et al, LFCS 2009: ATL with strategy context. 29 of 33
30 Operators for strategic commitment and release The idea: extend the language with operators to control strategic commitments and release within the formulae. A solution: add operators commit C, and release C. Example: John F(Get academic job John John FGet married) Formal semantics: truth of formulae is evaluated relative to models that are dynamically updated by strategy contexts. 30 of 33
31 Model update semantics of ATL (, ) Strategy context: a tuple of strategies F A for a set of agents A. For a strategy context F A and a collective strategy f C we denote: F f C : the strategy context extending F with the strategies in f C corresponding to the agents not mentioned in F. F C: the strategy context obtained from F by removing the strategies corresponding to the agents in C. Update of a model M by a strategy context f C : the model M F C obtained by fixing the choices of C as per the strategies in f C. Interpretation of the new strategic operators: M F, q = C φ iff C has a collective strategy f C such that M (F f C ), λ = φ for all plays λ starting at q in M (F f C ) M F, q = C φ iff M (F C), λ = φ for all plays λ starting at q in M (F C). 31 of 33
32 ATL with strategy contexts Brihaye, Da Costa, Laroussinie, and Markey: ATL with strategy contexts and bounded memory (LFCS 2009) The idea is very similar: keep the model intact but evaluate the truth relative to an explicitly specified strategy context. Only the strategy context update is different. Update of contexts. Consider a joint strategy s A of agents A (the current strategy context), and a new joint strategy t B of agents B. Context update s A t B is the joint strategy f for the agents in A B such that: f [i] = t B [i] for i B and f [i] = s A [i] for i A \ B. That is, the new strategies from t B are added to the context, replacing the previous ones for the same agents. N. Troquard and D. Walther (JELIA2012): Satisfiability in ATL with strategy contexts is undecidable. 32 of 33
33 Some references T. Ågotnes, V. Goranko, W. Jamroga, ATL with irrevocable strategies, Proc. of TARK T. Ågotnes, V. Goranko, W. Jamroga, ATL with Strategic Commitment and Release, Proc. of LOFT T. Brihaye, A. Da Costa, F. Laroussinie, and N. Markey: ATL with strategy contexts and bounded memory, Proc. of LFCS 2009 N. Troquard and D. Walther: Satisfiability in ATL with strategy contexts is undecidable, Proc. of JELIA of 33
Valentin Goranko Stockholm University. ESSLLI 2018 August 6-10, of 29
ESSLLI 2018 course Logics for Epistemic and Strategic Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems Lecture 5: Logics for temporal strategic reasoning with incomplete and imperfect information Valentin Goranko Stockholm
More informationAlternating Time Temporal Logics*
Alternating Time Temporal Logics* Sophie Pinchinat Visiting Research Fellow at RSISE Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowship * @article{alur2002, title={alternating-time Temporal Logic}, author={alur,
More informationAlternating-time Temporal Logics with Irrevocable Strategies
Alternating-time Temporal Logics with Irrevocable Strategies Thomas Ågotnes Dept. of Computer Engineering Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway tag@hib.no Valentin Goranko School of Mathematics Univ.
More informationOptimal Decision Procedures for Satisfiability in Fragments of Alternating-time Temporal Logics
Optimal Decision Procedures for Satisfiability in Fragments of Alternating-time Temporal Logics Valentin Goranko a,b Steen Vester a 1 a Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science Technical
More informationReasoning about Strategies: From module checking to strategy logic
Reasoning about Strategies: From module checking to strategy logic based on joint works with Fabio Mogavero, Giuseppe Perelli, Luigi Sauro, and Moshe Y. Vardi Luxembourg September 23, 2013 Reasoning about
More informationLogics of Rational Agency Lecture 3
Logics of Rational Agency Lecture 3 Eric Pacuit Tilburg Institute for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg Univeristy ai.stanford.edu/~epacuit July 29, 2009 Eric Pacuit: LORI, Lecture 3 1 Plan for the
More informationCollective resource bounded reasoning in concurrent multi-agent systems
Collective resource bounded reasoning in concurrent multi-agent systems Valentin Goranko Stockholm University (based on joint work with Nils Bulling) Workshop on Logics for Resource-Bounded Agents ESSLLI
More informationAlternating-Time Temporal Logic
Alternating-Time Temporal Logic R.Alur, T.Henzinger, O.Kupferman Rafael H. Bordini School of Informatics PUCRS R.Bordini@pucrs.br Logic Club 5th of September, 2013 ATL All the material in this presentation
More informationFlat Coalgebraic Fixed Point Logics
Lutz Schröder, Yde Venema: Flat Coalgebraic Fixed Point Logics 1 IFIP WG 1.3 Meeting, Etelsen, July 2010 Flat Coalgebraic Fixed Point Logics Lutz Schröder 1,2 Yde Venema 3 1 Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems,
More informationCoalition Games and Alternating Temporal Logics (Corrected version: September 7, 2001)
Coalition Games and Alternating Temporal Logics (Corrected version: September 7, 2001) Valentin Goranko Department of Mathematics, Rand Afrikaans University PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, Johannesburg,
More informationFrom Liveness to Promptness
From Liveness to Promptness Orna Kupferman Hebrew University Nir Piterman EPFL Moshe Y. Vardi Rice University Abstract Liveness temporal properties state that something good eventually happens, e.g., every
More informationTableau-based decision procedures for logics of strategic ability in multiagent systems
Tableau-based decision procedures for logics of strategic ability in multiagent systems VALENTIN GORANKO University of the Witwatersrand DMITRY SHKATOV University of the Witwatersrand We develop an incremental
More informationGuest lecturer: Prof. Mark Reynolds, The University of Western Australia
Università degli studi di Udine Corso per il dottorato di ricerca: Temporal Logics: Satisfiability Checking, Model Checking, and Synthesis January 2017 Lecture 01, Part 02: Temporal Logics Guest lecturer:
More informationIntroduction to Model Checking. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras
Introduction to Model Checking Debdeep Mukhopadhyay IIT Madras How good can you fight bugs? Comprising of three parts Formal Verification techniques consist of three parts: 1. A framework for modeling
More informationModel Checking Algorithms
Model Checking Algorithms Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan November 14, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Model Checking Algorithms November 14, 2018 1 / 56 Outline
More informationTemporal Logic. M φ. Outline. Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness. Ralf Huuck. Kripke Structure
Outline Temporal Logic Ralf Huuck Why not standard logic? What is temporal logic? LTL CTL* CTL Fairness Model Checking Problem model, program? M φ satisfies, Implements, refines property, specification
More informationModal logics: an introduction
Modal logics: an introduction Valentin Goranko DTU Informatics October 2010 Outline Non-classical logics in AI. Variety of modal logics. Brief historical remarks. Basic generic modal logic: syntax and
More informationThis is the published version of a paper published in ACM Transactions of Computational Logic.
http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in ACM Transactions of Computational Logic. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Goranko, V., Cerrito,
More informationModels for Efficient Timed Verification
Models for Efficient Timed Verification François Laroussinie LSV / ENS de Cachan CNRS UMR 8643 Monterey Workshop - Composition of embedded systems Model checking System Properties Formalizing step? ϕ Model
More informationOverview. overview / 357
Overview overview6.1 Introduction Modelling parallel systems Linear Time Properties Regular Properties Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) Computation Tree Logic syntax and semantics of CTL expressiveness of CTL
More informationA Strategic Epistemic Logic for Bounded Memory Agents
CNRS, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France Workshop on Resource Bounded Agents Barcelona 12 August, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 2 3 4 5 Combining Strategic and Epistemic Reasoning The goal is to develop
More informationChapter 4: Computation tree logic
INFOF412 Formal verification of computer systems Chapter 4: Computation tree logic Mickael Randour Formal Methods and Verification group Computer Science Department, ULB March 2017 1 CTL: a specification
More informationSome Remarks on Alternating Temporal Epistemic Logic
Some Remarks on Alternating Temporal Epistemic Logic Corrected version: July 2003 Wojciech Jamroga Parlevink Group, University of Twente, Netherlands Institute of Mathematics, University of Gdansk, Poland
More informationLogic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 21
Logic and Artificial Intelligence Lecture 21 Eric Pacuit Currently Visiting the Center for Formal Epistemology, CMU Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science Tilburg University ai.stanford.edu/ epacuit
More informationExpressiveness and decidability of ATL with strategy contexts
Expressiveness and decidability of ATL with strategy contexts Arnaud Da Costa, François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey July 2010 Research report LSV-10-14 Laboratoire Spécification & Vérification École Normale
More informationLogics for MAS: a critical overview
Logics for MAS: a critical overview Andreas Herzig CNRS, University of Toulouse, IRIT, France IJCAI 2013, August 9, 2013 1 / 37 Introduction 2 / 37 Introduction Multi-Agent Systems (MAS): agents with imperfect
More informationConcurrent Game Structures for Temporal STIT Logic
Concurrent Game Structures for Temporal STIT Logic ABSTRACT Joseph Boudou IRIT Toulouse University Toulouse, France The paper introduces a new semantics for temporal STIT logic the logic of seeing to it
More informationStrategic Coalitions with Perfect Recall
Strategic Coalitions with Perfect Recall Pavel Naumov Department of Computer Science Vassar College Poughkeepsie, New York 2604 pnaumov@vassar.edu Jia Tao Department of Computer Science Lafayette College
More informationFORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL)
Alessandro Artale (FM First Semester 2007/2008) p. 1/37 FORMAL METHODS LECTURE IV: COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Alessandro Artale Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bolzano artale@inf.unibz.it
More informationResource-bounded alternating-time temporal logic
Resource-bounded alternating-time temporal logic Natasha Alechina University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK nza@cs.nott.ac.uk Brian Logan University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK bsl@cs.nott.ac.uk Abdur Rakib
More informationThe State Explosion Problem
The State Explosion Problem Martin Kot August 16, 2003 1 Introduction One from main approaches to checking correctness of a concurrent system are state space methods. They are suitable for automatic analysis
More informationarxiv: v2 [cs.lo] 3 Sep 2018
Reasoning about Knowledge and Strategies under Hierarchical Information Bastien Maubert and Aniello Murano Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II arxiv:1806.00028v2 [cs.lo] 3 Sep 2018 Abstract Two
More informationTemporal Logic. Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley. We have designed a system. We want to check that it is correct.
EE 244: Fundamental Algorithms for System Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization Fall 2016 Temporal logic Stavros Tripakis University of California, Berkeley Stavros Tripakis (UC Berkeley) EE 244, Fall 2016
More informationATL with Strategy Contexts: Expressiveness and Model Checking
ATL with Strategy ontexts: Expressiveness and Model hecking Arnaud Da osta 1, François Laroussinie 2, and Nicolas Markey 1 1 Lab. Spécification & Vérification, ENS achan & NRS, France 2 LIAFA, Univ. Paris
More informationMCMAS-SLK: A Model Checker for the Verification of Strategy Logic Specifications
MCMAS-SLK: A Model Checker for the Verification of Strategy Logic Specifications Petr Čermák1, Alessio Lomuscio 1, Fabio Mogavero 2, and Aniello Murano 2 1 Imperial College London, UK 2 Università degli
More informationModel Checking ATL + is Harder than It Seemed
Model Checking ATL + is Harder than It Seemed Nils Bulling 1 and Wojciech Jamroga 2 IfI Technical Report Series IfI-09-13 Impressum Publisher: Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität Clausthal
More informationComputer-Aided Program Design
Computer-Aided Program Design Spring 2015, Rice University Unit 3 Swarat Chaudhuri February 5, 2015 Temporal logic Propositional logic is a good language for describing properties of program states. However,
More informationMonodic fragments of first-order temporal logics
Outline of talk Most propositional temporal logics are decidable. But the decision problem in predicate (first-order) temporal logics has seemed near-hopeless. Monodic fragments of first-order temporal
More informationTemporal logics and explicit-state model checking. Pierre Wolper Université de Liège
Temporal logics and explicit-state model checking Pierre Wolper Université de Liège 1 Topics to be covered Introducing explicit-state model checking Finite automata on infinite words Temporal Logics and
More informationAlternating nonzero automata
Alternating nonzero automata Application to the satisfiability of CTL [,, P >0, P =1 ] Hugo Gimbert, joint work with Paulin Fournier LaBRI, Université de Bordeaux ANR Stoch-MC 06/07/2017 Control and verification
More informationModel-Checking Games: from CTL to ATL
Model-Checking Games: from CTL to ATL Sophie Pinchinat May 4, 2007 Introduction - Outline Model checking of CTL is PSPACE-complete Presentation of Martin Lange and Colin Stirling Model Checking Games
More informationDatabase Theory VU , SS Complexity of Query Evaluation. Reinhard Pichler
Database Theory Database Theory VU 181.140, SS 2018 5. Complexity of Query Evaluation Reinhard Pichler Institut für Informationssysteme Arbeitsbereich DBAI Technische Universität Wien 17 April, 2018 Pichler
More informationComparing Semantics of Logics for Multi-agent Systems
Comparing Semantics of Logics for Multi-agent Systems Valentin Goranko Department of Mathematics, Rand Afrikaans University e-mail: vfg@na.rau.ac.za Wojciech Jamroga Parlevink Group, University of Twente,
More informationLanguages, logics and automata
Languages, logics and automata Anca Muscholl LaBRI, Bordeaux, France EWM summer school, Leiden 2011 1 / 89 Before all that.. Sonia Kowalewskaya Emmy Noether Julia Robinson All this attention has been gratifying
More informationSocially Friendly and Group Protecting Coalition Logics
Socially Friendly and Group Protecting Coalition Logics Valentin Goranko 1,2 and Sebastian Enqvist 1 1 Stockholm University, Sweden 2 University of Johannesburg, South Africa (visiting professorship) valentin.goranko@philosophy.su.se,
More informationAlan Bundy. Automated Reasoning LTL Model Checking
Automated Reasoning LTL Model Checking Alan Bundy Lecture 9, page 1 Introduction So far we have looked at theorem proving Powerful, especially where good sets of rewrite rules or decision procedures have
More informationIntroduction to Temporal Logic. The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either
Introduction to Temporal Logic The purpose of temporal logics is to specify properties of dynamic systems. These can be either Desired properites. Often liveness properties like In every infinite run action
More informationA tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic
A tableau-based decision procedure for a branching-time interval temporal logic Davide Bresolin Angelo Montanari Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università degli Studi di Udine {bresolin, montana}@dimi.uniud.it
More informationSpecification and Verification of Multi-Agent Systems ESSLLI 2010 CPH
Specification and Verification of Multi-Agent Systems Wojciech Jamroga 1 and Wojciech Penczek 2 1 Computer Science and Communication, University of Luxembourg wojtek.jamroga@uni.lu 2 Institute of Computer
More informationChapter 6: Computation Tree Logic
Chapter 6: Computation Tree Logic Prof. Ali Movaghar Verification of Reactive Systems Outline We introduce Computation Tree Logic (CTL), a branching temporal logic for specifying system properties. A comparison
More informationOn the Expressiveness and Complexity of ATL
On the Expressiveness and Complexity of ATL François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, and Ghassan Oreiby LSV, CNRS & ENS Cachan, France Abstract. ATL is a temporal logic geared towards the specification and
More informationFrom Liveness to Promptness
From Liveness to Promptness Orna Kupferman 1, Nir Piterman 2, and Moshe Y. Vardi 3 1 Hebrew University 2 Ecole Polytechnique Fédéral de Lausanne (EPFL) 3 Rice University Abstract. Liveness temporal properties
More informationAutomata and Reactive Systems
Automata and Reactive Systems Lecture WS 2002/2003 Prof. Dr. W. Thomas RWTH Aachen Preliminary version (Last change March 20, 2003) Translated and revised by S. N. Cho and S. Wöhrle German version by M.
More informationReasoning about actions meets strategic logics Quand le raisonnement sur les actions rencontre les logiques stratégiques
Reasoning about actions meets strategic logics Quand le raisonnement sur les actions rencontre les logiques stratégiques Andreas Herzig lorini@irit.fr Emiliano Lorini herzig@irit.fr Dirk Walther dirkww@googlemail.com
More informationComputation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms
Computation Tree Logic (CTL) & Basic Model Checking Algorithms Martin Fränzle Carl von Ossietzky Universität Dpt. of Computing Science Res. Grp. Hybride Systeme Oldenburg, Germany 02917: CTL & Model Checking
More informationModel for reactive systems/software
Temporal Logics CS 5219 Abhik Roychoudhury National University of Singapore The big picture Software/ Sys. to be built (Dream) Properties to Satisfy (caution) Today s lecture System Model (Rough Idea)
More informationReasoning about Time and Reliability
Reasoning about Time and Reliability Probabilistic CTL model checking Daniel Bruns Institut für theoretische Informatik Universität Karlsruhe 13. Juli 2007 Seminar Theorie und Anwendung von Model Checking
More informationLecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata
15-414: Bug Catching: Automated Program Verification Lecture Notes on Emptiness Checking, LTL Büchi Automata Matt Fredrikson André Platzer Carnegie Mellon University Lecture 18 1 Introduction We ve seen
More informationComputation Tree Logic
Computation Tree Logic Hao Zheng Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 Email: zheng@cse.usf.edu Phone: (813)974-4757 Fax: (813)974-5456 Hao Zheng (CSE,
More informationOptimal Bounds in Parametric LTL Games
Optimal Bounds in Parametric LTL Games Martin Zimmermann 1 Institute of Informatics University of Warsaw Warsaw, Poland Abstract Parameterized linear temporal logics are extensions of Linear Temporal Logic
More informationModel Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 5. Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark
Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture 5 Valentin Goranko Technical University of Denmark Third Indian School on Logic and its Applications Hyderabad, January 29, 2010 Model Theory of Modal Logic Lecture
More informationDeciding Safety and Liveness in TPTL
Deciding Safety and Liveness in TPTL David Basin a, Carlos Cotrini Jiménez a,, Felix Klaedtke b,1, Eugen Zălinescu a a Institute of Information Security, ETH Zurich, Switzerland b NEC Europe Ltd., Heidelberg,
More informationA Propositional Dynamic Logic for Instantial Neighborhood Semantics
A Propositional Dynamic Logic for Instantial Neighborhood Semantics Johan van Benthem, Nick Bezhanishvili, Sebastian Enqvist Abstract We propose a new perspective on logics of computation by combining
More informationMetric Propositional Neighborhood Logics
Metric Propositional Neighborhood Logics D. Bresolin, D. Della Monica, V. Goranko, A. Montanari, and G. Sciavicco University of Murcia guido@um.es Please notice: these slides have been mostly produced
More informationOn Logics of Strategic Ability based on Propositional Control
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-16) On Logics of Strategic Ability based on Propositional Control Francesco Belardinelli 1 and Andreas Herzig
More informationRelaxing Exclusive Control in Boolean Games
Relaxing Exclusive Control in Boolean Games Francesco Belardinelli IBISC, Université d Evry and IRIT, CNRS, Toulouse belardinelli@ibisc.fr Dominique Longin IRIT, CNRS, Toulouse dominique.longin@irit.fr
More informationStrategy Logic. 1 Introduction. Krishnendu Chatterjee 1, Thomas A. Henzinger 1,2, and Nir Piterman 2
Strategy Logic Krishnendu Chatterjee 1, Thomas A. Henzinger 1,2, and Nir Piterman 2 1 University of California, Berkeley, USA 2 EPFL, Switzerland c krish@eecs.berkeley.edu, {tah,nir.piterman}@epfl.ch Abstract.
More informationTopics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017
Topics in Verification AZADEH FARZAN FALL 2017 Last time LTL Syntax ϕ ::= true a ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ϕ ϕ ϕ 1 U ϕ 2 a AP. ϕ def = trueu ϕ ϕ def = ϕ g intuitive meaning of and is obt Limitations of LTL pay pay τ τ soda
More informationYanjing Wang: An epistemic logic of knowing what
An epistemic logic of knowing what Yanjing Wang TBA workshop, Lorentz center, Aug. 18 2015 Background: beyond knowing that A logic of knowing what Conclusions Why knowledge matters (in plans and protocols)
More informationDecision Procedures for CTL
Decision Procedures for CTL Oliver Friedmann and Markus Latte Dept. of Computer Science, University of Munich, Germany Abstract. We give an overview over three serious attempts to devise an effective decision
More informationReasoning about Memoryless Strategies under Partial Observability and Unconditional Fairness Constraints
Reasoning about Memoryless Strategies under Partial Observability and Unconditional Fairness Constraints Simon Busard a,1, Charles Pecheur a, Hongyang Qu b,2, Franco Raimondi c a ICTEAM Institute, Université
More informationThe Ceteris Paribus Structure of Logics of Game Forms (Extended Abstract)
The Ceteris Paribus Structure of Logics of Game Forms (Extended Abstract) Davide Grossi University of Liverpool D.Grossi@liverpool.ac.uk Emiliano Lorini IRIT-CNRS, Toulouse University François Schwarzentruber
More informationGroup Announcement Logic
Group Announcement Logic Thomas Ågotnes joint work with: Philippe Baliani Hans van Ditmarsch Palo Sean Elevator pitch Group Announcement Logic extends pulic announcement logic with: G φ : Group G can make
More informationCTL with Finitely Bounded Semantics
CTL with Finitely Bounded Semantics Valentin Goranko 1, Antti Kuusisto 2, and Raine Rönnholm 3 1 Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; and University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa valentin.goranko@philosophy.su.se
More informationBounded Model Checking with SAT/SMT. Edmund M. Clarke School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University 1/39
Bounded Model Checking with SAT/SMT Edmund M. Clarke School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University 1/39 Recap: Symbolic Model Checking with BDDs Method used by most industrial strength model checkers:
More informationInfinite Games. Sumit Nain. 28 January Slides Credit: Barbara Jobstmann (CNRS/Verimag) Department of Computer Science Rice University
Infinite Games Sumit Nain Department of Computer Science Rice University 28 January 2013 Slides Credit: Barbara Jobstmann (CNRS/Verimag) Motivation Abstract games are of fundamental importance in mathematics
More information3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement
3-Valued Abstraction-Refinement Sharon Shoham Academic College of Tel-Aviv Yaffo 1 Model Checking An efficient procedure that receives: A finite-state model describing a system A temporal logic formula
More informationAn Introduction to Temporal Logics
An Introduction to Temporal Logics c 2001,2004 M. Lawford Outline Motivation: Dining Philosophers Safety, Liveness, Fairness & Justice Kripke structures, LTS, SELTS, and Paths Linear Temporal Logic Branching
More informationDecentralized Control of Discrete Event Systems with Bounded or Unbounded Delay Communication
Decentralized Control of Discrete Event Systems with Bounded or Unbounded Delay Communication Stavros Tripakis Abstract We introduce problems of decentralized control with communication, where we explicitly
More informationSemantic Equivalences and the. Verification of Infinite-State Systems 1 c 2004 Richard Mayr
Semantic Equivalences and the Verification of Infinite-State Systems Richard Mayr Department of Computer Science Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg Germany Verification of Infinite-State Systems 1 c 2004
More informationModels. Lecture 25: Model Checking. Example. Semantics. Meanings with respect to model and path through future...
Models Lecture 25: Model Checking CSCI 81 Spring, 2012 Kim Bruce Meanings with respect to model and path through future... M = (S,, L) is a transition system if S is a set of states is a transition relation
More informationLecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL)
Lecture 16: Computation Tree Logic (CTL) 1 Programme for the upcoming lectures Introducing CTL Basic Algorithms for CTL CTL and Fairness; computing strongly connected components Basic Decision Diagrams
More informationSemi-Automatic Distributed Synthesis
Semi-Automatic Distributed Synthesis Bernd Finkbeiner and Sven Schewe Universität des Saarlandes, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany {finkbeiner schewe}@cs.uni-sb.de Abstract. We propose a sound and complete compositional
More informationFinite-State Model Checking
EECS 219C: Computer-Aided Verification Intro. to Model Checking: Models and Properties Sanjit A. Seshia EECS, UC Berkeley Finite-State Model Checking G(p X q) Temporal logic q p FSM Model Checker Yes,
More informationThe theory of regular cost functions.
The theory of regular cost functions. Denis Kuperberg PhD under supervision of Thomas Colcombet Hebrew University of Jerusalem ERC Workshop on Quantitative Formal Methods Jerusalem, 10-05-2013 1 / 30 Introduction
More informationA Survey of Partial-Observation Stochastic Parity Games
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) A Survey of Partial-Observation Stochastic Parity Games Krishnendu Chatterjee Laurent Doyen Thomas A. Henzinger the date of receipt and acceptance
More informationLogic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables
Logic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables Raffaella Bernardi bernardi@inf.unibz.it P.zza Domenicani 3, Room 2.28 Faculty of Computer Science, Free University of Bolzano-Bozen http://www.inf.unibz.it/~bernardi/courses/logic06
More informationDeveloping Modal Tableaux and Resolution Methods via First-Order Resolution
Developing Modal Tableaux and Resolution Methods via First-Order Resolution Renate Schmidt University of Manchester Reference: Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 6 (2006) Modal logic: Background Established
More informationA Tableau-Based Decision Procedure for Right Propositional Neighborhood Logic (RPNL )
A Tableau-Based Decision Procedure for Right Propositional Neighborhood Logic (RPNL ) Davide Bresolin Angelo Montanari Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica Università degli Studi di Udine {bresolin,
More informationThe Complexity of Computing the Behaviour of Lattice Automata on Infinite Trees
The Complexity of Computing the Behaviour of Lattice Automata on Infinite Trees Karsten Lehmann a, Rafael Peñaloza b a Optimisation Research Group, NICTA Artificial Intelligence Group, Australian National
More informationReasoning about Equilibria in Game-Like Concurrent Systems
Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Reasoning about Equilibria in Game-Like Concurrent Systems Julian Gutierrez and Paul Harrenstein
More informationReasoning about Equilibria in Game-like Concurrent Systems
Reasoning about Equilibria in Game-like Concurrent Systems Julian Gutierrez, Paul Harrenstein, Michael Wooldridge Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Abstract In this paper we study techniques
More informationLTL with Arithmetic and its Applications in Reasoning about Hierarchical Systems
This space is reserved for the EPiC Series header, do not use it LTL with Arithmetic and its Applications in Reasoning about Hierarchical Systems Rachel Faran and Orna Kupferman The Hebrew University,
More informationOn the Expressiveness and Complexity of ATL
On the Expressiveness and Complexity of ATL François Laroussinie, Nicolas Markey, Ghassan Oreiby LSV, CNRS & ENS-Cachan Recherches en vérification automatique March 14, 2006 Overview of CTL CTL A Kripke
More informationHow to Be Both Rich and Happy: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Strategic Reasoning about Multi-Player Games
Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 30, 2018 How to Be Both Rich and Happy: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Strategic Reasoning about Multi-Player Games Bulling, Nils; Goranko, Valentin Published
More informationTemporal Logic Model Checking
18 Feb, 2009 Thomas Wahl, Oxford University Temporal Logic Model Checking 1 Temporal Logic Model Checking Thomas Wahl Computing Laboratory, Oxford University 18 Feb, 2009 Thomas Wahl, Oxford University
More informationProbabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford
Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term 20 Dr. Dave Parker Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Overview PCTL for MDPs syntax, semantics, examples PCTL model checking next, bounded
More informationNeighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5
Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 5 Eric Pacuit ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam staff.science.uva.nl/ epacuit August 17, 2007 Eric Pacuit: Neighborhood Semantics, Lecture 5 1 Plan for the
More informationModel Checking: An Introduction
Model Checking: An Introduction Meeting 3, CSCI 5535, Spring 2013 Announcements Homework 0 ( Preliminaries ) out, due Friday Saturday This Week Dive into research motivating CSCI 5535 Next Week Begin foundations
More informationSummary. Computation Tree logic Vs. LTL. CTL at a glance. KM,s =! iff for every path " starting at s KM," =! COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL)
Summary COMPUTATION TREE LOGIC (CTL) Slides by Alessandro Artale http://www.inf.unibz.it/ artale/ Some material (text, figures) displayed in these slides is courtesy of: M. Benerecetti, A. Cimatti, M.
More information