MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035029999 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/250

A Modal Logic for Joint Abilities under Strategy Commitments

2020· article· en· W3035029999 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaoshuai Liu, Liping Xiong, Yongmei Liu, Yves Lespérance, Ronghai Xu, Hongyi Shi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMultimodal logicLinear temporal logicExtension (predicate logic)Modal logicDynamic logic (digital electronics)Computer scienceTemporal logicJoint (building)Temporal logic of actionsModalOperator (biology)Representation (politics)Description logicKnowledge representation and reasoningArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Representation and reasoning about strategic abilities has been an active research area in AI and multi-agent systems. Many variations and extensions of alternating-time temporal logic ATL have been proposed. However, most of the logical frameworks ignore the issue of coordination within a coalition, and are unable to specify the internal structure of strategies. In this paper, we propose JAADL, a modal logic for joint abilities under strategy commitments, which is an extension of ATL. Firstly, we introduce an operator of elimination of (strictly) dominated strategies, with which we can represent joint abilities of coalitions. Secondly, our logic is based on linear dynamic logic (LDL), an extension of linear temporal logic (LTL), so that we can use regular expressions to represent commitments to structured strategies. We analyze valid formulas in JAADL, give sufficient/necessary conditions for joint abilities, and show that model checking memoryless JAADL is in EXPTIME.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207