Concurrent multi-player mean-payoff games are important models for systems of agents with individual, non-dichotomous preferences. Whilst these games have been extensively studied in terms of their equilibria in non-cooperative settings, this paper explores an alternative solution concept: the core from cooperative game theory. This concept is particularly relevant for cooperative AI systems, as it enables the modelling of cooperation among agents, even when their goals are not fully aligned. Our contribution is twofold. First, we provide a characterisation of the core using discrete geometry techniques and establish a necessary and sufficient condition for its non-emptiness. We then use the characterisation to prove the existence of polynomial witnesses in the core. Second, we use the existence of such witnesses to solve key decision problems in rational verification and provide tight complexity bounds for the problem of checking whether some/every equilibrium in a game satisfies a given LTL or GR(1) specification. Our approach is general and can be adapted to handle other specifications expressed in various fragments of LTL without incurring additional computational costs.

In rational verification, the aim is to verify which temporal logic properties will obtain in a multi-agent system, under the assumption that agents ("players") in the system choose strategies for acting that form a game theoretic equilibrium. Preferences are typically defined by assuming that agents act in pursuit of individual goals, specified as temporal logic formulae. To date, rational verification has been studied using non-cooperative solution concepts - Nash equilibrium and refinements thereof. Such non-cooperative solution concepts assume that there is no possibility of agents forming binding agreements to cooperate, and as such they are restricted in their applicability. In this article, we extend rational verification to cooperative solution concepts, as studied in the field of cooperative game theory. We focus on the core, as this is the most fundamental (and most widely studied) cooperative solution concept. We begin by presenting a variant of the core that seems well-suited to the concurrent game setting, and we show that this version of the core can be characterised using ATL*. We then study the computational complexity of key decision problems associated with the core, which range from problems in PSPACE to problems in 3EXPTIME. We also investigate conditions that are sufficient to ensure that the core is non-empty, and explore when it is invariant under bisimilarity. We then introduce and study a number of variants of the main definition of the core, leading to the issue of credible deviations, and to stronger notions of collective stable behaviour. Finally, we study cooperative rational verification using an alternative model of preferences, in which players seek to maximise the mean-payoff they obtain over an infinite play in games where quantitative information is allowed.

From this standpoint, agents/processes in a multi-agent system can be understood as players in a game played on a directed graph (a transition system), acting strategically and independently in pursuit of their preferences. In this setting, possible behaviours of agents correspond to the strategies of players. One important strand of work in this tradition has been the development of techniques for reasoning about what properties players (or coalitions of players) can bring about (i.e., whether they have "winning strategies" for certain conditions) [4]. Recently, attention has begun to shift from the analysis of strategic ability to the analysis of the equilibrium properties of such systems. A typical question in this setting is whether a particular temporal property will hold under the assumption that players select strategies that collectively form a Nash equilibrium [35]. A fundamental question in this work is how the preferences of agents are represented.