What Makes Atl* Decidable? A Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic

Strategy Logic (Sl, for short) has been recently introduced by Mogavero, Murano, and Vardi as a formalism for reasoning explicitly about strategies, as first-order objects, in multi-agent concurrent games. This logic turns out to be very powerful, strictly subsuming all major previously studied modal logics for strategic reasoning, including Atl, Atl*, and the like. The price that one has to pay for the expressiveness of Sl is the lack of important model-theoretic properties and an increased complexity of decision problems. In particular, Sl does not have the bounded-tree model property and the related satisfiability problem is highly undecidable while for Atl* it is 2ExpTime-complete. An obvious question that arises is then what makes Atl* decidable. Understanding this should enable us to identify decidable fragments of Sl. We focus, in this work, on the limitation of Atl* to allow only one temporal goal for each strategic assertion and study the fragment of Sl with the same restriction. Specifically, we introduce and study the syntactic fragment One-Goal Strategy Logic (Sl[1g], for short), which consists of formulas in prenex normal form having a single temporal goal at a time for every strategy quantification of agents. We show that Sl[1g] is strictly more expressive than Atl*. Our main result is that Sl[1g] has the bounded tree-model property and its satisfiability problem is 2ExpTime-complete, as it is for Atl*.

[1]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Relentful strategic reasoning in alternating-time temporal logic , 2010, J. Log. Comput..

[2]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  Agents that Know How to Play , 2004, Fundam. Informaticae.

[3]  E. Muller David,et al.  Alternating automata on infinite trees , 1987 .

[4]  Chen C. Chang,et al.  Model Theory: Third Edition (Dover Books On Mathematics) By C.C. Chang;H. Jerome Keisler;Mathematics , 1966 .

[5]  David E. Muller,et al.  Alternating Automata on Infinite Trees , 1987, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Nicolas Markey,et al.  ATL with Strategy Contexts: Expressiveness and Model Checking , 2010, FSTTCS.

[7]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  “Sometimes” and “not never” revisited: on branching versus linear time temporal logic , 1986, JACM.

[8]  Fred Kröger,et al.  Temporal Logic of Programs , 1987, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[9]  Parosh Aziz Abdulla,et al.  Advanced Ramsey-Based Büchi Automata Inclusion Testing , 2011, CONCUR.

[10]  Federico.  Università degli Studi di Napoli , 2013 .

[11]  Robin Milner,et al.  On Observing Nondeterminism and Concurrency , 1980, ICALP.

[12]  Berndt Farwer,et al.  ω-automata , 2002 .

[13]  Fabio Mogavero.  Reasoning About Strategies , 2013, FSTTCS 2013.

[14]  W. J. Thron,et al.  Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. , 1982 .

[15]  Mohamed Nassim Seghir,et al.  A Lightweight Approach for Loop Summarization , 2011, ATVA.

[16]  Sven Schewe.  ATL* Satisfiability Is 2EXPTIME-Complete , 2008, ICALP.

[17]  Thomas Wilke,et al.  Automata logics, and infinite games: a guide to current research , 2002 .

[18]  Thomas Wilke,et al.  Automata Logics, and Infinite Games , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  Sometimes and Not Never Re-revisited: On Branching Versus Linear Time , 1998, CONCUR.

[20]  Marc Pauly,et al.  A Modal Logic for Coalitional Power in Games , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[21]  Richard J. Nowakowski,et al.  Lessons in Play: An Introduction to Combinatorial Game Theory , 2007 .

[22]  Sophie Pinchinat.  A Generic Constructive Solution for Concurrent Games with Expressive Constraints on Strategies , 2007, ATVA.

[23]  Bernd Finkbeiner,et al.  Coordination Logic , 2010, CSL.

[24]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[25]  Farn Wang,et al.  A Temporal Logic for the Interaction of Strategies , 2011, CONCUR.

[26]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking , 2000, JACM.

[27]  Stephan Merz,et al.  Model Checking , 2000 .

[28]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  An Automata-Theoretic Approach to Automatic Program Verification (Preliminary Report) , 1986, LICS.

[29]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Reasoning About Strategies: On the Model-Checking Problem , 2011, ArXiv.

[30]  Dana Fisman,et al.  Rational Synthesis , 2009, TACAS.

[31]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1999 .

[32]  David E. Muller,et al.  Simulating Alternating Tree Automata by Nondeterministic Automata: New Results and New Proofs of the Theorems of Rabin, McNaughton and Safra , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[33]  M. Rabin.  Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees , 1968 .

[34]  Moshe Y. Vardi.  Why is Modal Logic So Robustly Decidable? , 1996, Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models.

[35]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Strategy logic , 2007, Inf. Comput..

[36]  Dexter Kozen,et al.  RESULTS ON THE PROPOSITIONAL’p-CALCULUS , 2001 .

[37]  Aniello Murano,et al.  A Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic , 2012, ArXiv.

[38]  Alex K. Simpson,et al.  Computational Adequacy in an Elementary Topos , 1998, CSL.

[39]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  Automata theoretic techniques for modal logics of programs: (Extended abstract) , 1984, STOC '84.

[40]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Monodic fragments of first-order temporal logics: 2000-2001 A.D , 2001, LPAR.