Nash Equilibrium and Bisimulation Invariance

Game theory provides a well-established framework for the analysis of concurrent and multi-agent systems. The basic idea is that concurrent processes (agents) can be understood as corresponding to players in a game; plays represent the possible computation runs of the system; and strategies define the behaviour of agents. Typically, strategies are modelled as functions from sequences of system states to player actions. Analysing a system in such a setting involves computing the set of (Nash) equilibria in the concurrent game. However, we show that, with respect to the above model of strategies (arguably, the "standard" model in the computer science literature), bisimilarity does not preserve the existence of Nash equilibria. Thus, two concurrent games which are behaviourally equivalent from a semantic perspective, and which from a logical perspective satisfy the same temporal logic formulae, may nevertheless have fundamentally different properties (solutions) from a game theoretic perspective. Our aim in this paper is to explore the issues raised by this discovery. After illustrating the issue by way of a motivating example, we present three models of strategies with respect to which the existence of Nash equilibria is preserved under bisimilarity. We use some of these models of strategies to provide new semantic foundations for logics for strategic reasoning, and investigate restricted scenarios where bisimilarity can be shown to preserve the existence of Nash equilibria with respect to the conventional model of strategies in the computer science literature.

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

[2]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  From model checking to equilibrium checking: Reactive modules for rational verification , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[3]  C. A. R. Hoare,et al.  A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes , 1984, JACM.

[4]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Model checking and abstraction , 1994, TOPL.

[5]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  The temporal logic of programs , 1977, 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977).

[6]  Rocco De Nicola,et al.  Three logics for branching bisimulation , 1995, JACM.

[7]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[8]  Marta Z. Kwiatkowska,et al.  PRISM 4.0: Verification of Probabilistic Real-Time Systems , 2011, CAV.

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

[10]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  MCMAS-SLK: A Model Checker for the Verification of Strategy Logic Specifications , 2014, CAV.

[11]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about equilibria in game-like concurrent systems , 2014, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[12]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  MOCHA: Modularity in Model Checking , 1998, CAV.

[13]  Romain Brenguier,et al.  PRALINE: A Tool for Computing Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Games , 2013, CAV.

[14]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating Refinement Relations , 1998, CONCUR.

[15]  Marta Z. Kwiatkowska,et al.  PRISM-Games 2.0: A Tool for Multi-objective Strategy Synthesis for Stochastic Games , 2016, TACAS.

[16]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Iterated Boolean games , 2013, Inf. Comput..

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

[18]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  EVE: A Tool for Temporal Equilibrium Analysis , 2018, ATVA.

[19]  Davide Sangiorgi,et al.  On the origins of bisimulation and coinduction , 2009, TOPL.

[20]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Reactive Modules , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[21]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Equilibria of concurrent games on event structures , 2014, CSL-LICS.

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

[23]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic , 1981, Logic of Programs.

[24]  Robin Milner,et al.  Algebraic laws for nondeterminism and concurrency , 1985, JACM.

[25]  Christel Baier,et al.  Principles of model checking , 2008 .

[26]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the complexity of practical ATL model checking , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[27]  Patrick Cousot,et al.  On Abstraction in Software Verification , 2002, CAV.

[28]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[29]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  A Tool for the Automated Verification of Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Games , 2015, ICTAC.

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

[31]  Randal E. Bryant,et al.  Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagrams , 1992, CSUR.

[32]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Extensive Games as Process Models , 2002, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[33]  Patricia Bouyer,et al.  Pure Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Deterministic Games , 2015, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..

[34]  Patricia Bouyer,et al.  Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Games with Büchi Objectives , 2011, FSTTCS.

[35]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Reasoning about Strategies: on the Satisfiability Problem , 2016, Log. Methods Comput. Sci..

[36]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Expresiveness and Complexity Results for Strategic Reasoning , 2015, CONCUR.

[37]  Rob J. van Glabbeek,et al.  Branching time and abstraction in bisimulation semantics , 1996, JACM.

[38]  Robin Milner,et al.  Communication and concurrency , 1989, PHI Series in computer science.

[39]  Rohit Parikh,et al.  Game Logic - An Overview , 2003, Stud Logica.

[40]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Modal Correspondence Theory , 1977 .

[41]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Model Checking , 1999, Handbook of Automated Reasoning.