Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

Intentions and Strategies in Game-Like Scenarios

  • Conference paper
Progress in Artificial Intelligence (EPIA 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3808))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the link between logics of games and “mentalistic” logics of rational agency, in which agents are characterized in terms of attitudes such as belief, desire and intention. In particular, we investigate the possibility of extending the logics of games with the notion of agents’ intentions (in the sense of Cohen and Levesque’s BDI theory). We propose a new operator (straσ) that can be used to formalize reasoning about outcomes of strategies in game-like scenarios. We briefly discuss the relationship between intentions and goals in this new framework, and show how to capture dynamic logic-like constructs. Finally, we demonstrate how game-theoretical concepts like Nash equilibrium can be expressed to reason about rational intentions and their consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time Temporal Logic. Journal of the ACM 49, 672–713 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baltag, A.: A logic for suspicious players. Bulletin of Economic Research 54(1), 1–46 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Blum, A.L., Furst, M.L.: Fast planning through graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90, 281–300 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonanno, G.: Modal logic and game theory: Two alternative approaches. Risk Decision and Policy 7, 309–324 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonanno, G.: A characterization of von Neumann games in terms of memory. Synthese 139(2), 237–256 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bratman, M.E.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Giunchiglia, F., Traverso, P.: Planning as model checking. In: ECP, pp. 1–20 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrenstein, B.P., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J., Witteveen, C.: A modal characterization of Nash equilibrium. Fundamenta Informaticae 57(2-4), 281–321 (2003)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Osborne, M., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Pollack, M.: The uses of plans. Artificial Intelligence 57(1), 43–68 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR 1991, pp. 473–484 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stalnaker, R.: Knowledge, belief and counterfactual reasoning in games. Economics and Philosophy 12, 133–163 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. van Benthem, J.: Games in dynamic epistemic logic. Bulletin of Economic Research 53(4), 219–248 (2001); Proceedings of LOFT-4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: A logic for strategic reasoning. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. van der Hoek, W., Roberts, M., Wooldridge, M.: Social laws in alternating time: Effectiveness, feasibility and synthesis. Synthese (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  19. van Otterloo, S., Jonker, G.: On Epistemic Temporal Strategic Logic. In: Proceedings of LCMAS, pp. 35–45 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  20. van Otterloo, S., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Preferences in game logics. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multi Agent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jamroga, W., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M. (2005). Intentions and Strategies in Game-Like Scenarios. In: Bento, C., Cardoso, A., Dias, G. (eds) Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3808. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11595014_51

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11595014_51

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30737-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31646-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics