We extend concurrent game structures (CGSs) with a simple notion of preference over computations and define a minimal notion of rationality for agents based on the concept of dominance. We use this notion to interpret a CL and an ATL languages that extend the basic CL and ATL languages with modalities for rational capability, namely, a coalition's capability to rationally enforce a given property. For each of these languages, we provide results about the complexity of satisfiability checking and model checking as well as about axiomatization.

The design and application of multi-agent systems (MAS) require reasoning about the effects of modifications on their underlying structure. In particular, such changes may impact the satisfaction of system specifications and the strategic abilities of their autonomous components. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of verifying and synthesising modifications (or \textit{updates}) of MAS. We propose an extension of the Alternating-Time Temporal Logic ($\mathsf{ATL}$) that enables reasoning about the dynamics of model change, called the \textit{Logic for $\mathsf{ATL}$ Model Building} ($\mathsf{LAMB}$). We show how $\mathsf{LAMB}$ can express various intuitions and ideas about the dynamics of MAS, from normative updates to mechanism design. As the main technical result, we prove that, while being strictly more expressive than $\mathsf{ATL}$, $\mathsf{LAMB}$ enjoys a P-complete model-checking procedure.

Strategies synthesized using formal methods can be complex and often require infinite memory, which does not correspond to the expected behavior when trying to model Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). To capture such behaviors, natural strategies are a recently proposed framework striking a balance between the ability of agents to strategize with memory and the model-checking complexity, but until now has been restricted to fully deterministic settings. For the first time, we consider the probabilistic temporal logics PATL and PATL* under natural strategies (NatPATL and NatPATL*, resp.). As main result we show that, in stochastic MAS, NatPATL model-checking is NP-complete when the active coalition is restricted to deterministic strategies. We also give a 2NEXPTIME complexity result for NatPATL* with the same restriction. In the unrestricted case, we give an EXPSPACE complexity for NatPATL and 3EXPSPACE complexity for NatPATL*.

In this paper, we investigate the probabilistic variants of the strategy logics ATL and ATL* under imperfect information. Specifically, we present novel decidability and complexity results when the model transitions are stochastic and agents play uniform strategies. That is, the semantics of the logics are based on multi-agent, stochastic transition systems with imperfect information, which combine two sources of uncertainty, namely, the partial observability agents have on the environment, and the likelihood of transitions to occur from a system state. Since the model checking problem is undecidable in general in this setting, we restrict our attention to agents with memoryless (positional) strategies. The resulting setting captures the situation in which agents have qualitative uncertainty of the local state and quantitative uncertainty about the occurrence of future events. We illustrate the usefulness of this setting with meaningful examples.

Discounting is an important dimension in multi-agent systems as long as we want to reason about strategies and time. It is a key aspect in economics as it captures the intuition that the far-away future is not as important as the near future. Traditional verification techniques allow to check whether there is a winning strategy for a group of agents but they do not take into account the fact that satisfying a goal sooner is different from satisfying it after a long wait. In this paper, we augment Strategy Logic with future discounting over a set of discounted functions D, denoted SLdisc[D]. We consider "until" operators with discounting functions: the satisfaction value of a specification in SLdisc[D] is a value in [0, 1], where the longer it takes to fulfill requirements, the smaller the satisfaction value is. We motivate our approach with classical examples from Game Theory and study the complexity of model-checking SLdisc[D]-formulas.

The goal of this paper is to propose a framework for representing and reasoning about the rules governing a combinatorial exchange. Such a framework is at first interest as long as we want to build up digital marketplaces based on auction, a widely used mechanism for automated transactions. Combinatorial exchange is the most general case of auctions, mixing the double and combinatorial variants: agents bid to trade bundles of goods. Hence the framework should fulfill two requirements: (i) it should enable bidders to express their bids on combinations of goods and (ii) it should allow describing the rules governing some market, namely the legal bids, the allocation and payment rules. To do so, we define a logical language in the spirit of the Game Description Language: the Combinatorial Exchange Description Language is the first language for describing combinatorial exchange in a logical framework. The contribution is two-fold: first, we illustrate the general dimension by representing different kinds of protocols, and second, we show how to reason about auction properties in this machine-processable language.