BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Nicolas Troquard

Nicolas Troquard contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Logic in Computer ScienceComputer Science and Game TheoryMultiagent Systems

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Careful Autonomous Agents in Environments With Multiple Common Resources

Careful rational synthesis was defined in (Condurache et al. 2021) as a quantitative extension of Fisman et al.'s rational synthesis (Fisman et al. 2010), as a model of multi-agent systems in which agents are interacting in a graph arena in a turn-based fashion. There is one common resource, and each action may decrease or increase the resource. Each agent has a temporal qualitative objective and wants to maintain the value of the resource positive. One must find a Nash equilibrium. This problem is decidable. In more practical settings, the verification of the critical properties of multi-agent systems calls for models with many resources. Indeed, agents and robots consume and produce more than one type of resource: electric energy, fuel, raw material, manufactured goods, etc. We thus explore the problem of careful rational synthesis with several resources. We show that the problem is undecidable. We then propose a variant with bounded resources, motivated by the observation that in practical settings, the storage of resources is limited. We show that the problem becomes decidable, and is no harder than controller synthesis with Linear-time Temporal Logic objectives.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Individual Resource Games and Resource Redistributions

We introduce a class of resource games where resources and preferences are specified with the language of a resource-sensitive logic. The agents are endowed with a bag of resources and try to achieve a resource objective. For each agent, an action consists in making available a part of their endowed resources. All the resources made available can be used towards the agents' objectives. We study three decision problems, the first of which is deciding whether an action profile is a Nash equilibrium: when all the agents have chosen an action, it is a Nash Equilibrium if no agent has an incentive to change their action unilaterally. When dealing with resources, interesting questions arise as to whether some equilibria can be eliminated or constructed by a central authority by redistributing the available resources among the agents. In our economies, division of property in divorce law exemplifies how a central authority can redistribute the resources of individuals and why they would desire to do so. We thus study two related decision problems: (i) rational elimination: given an action profile's outcome, can the endowed resources be redistributed so that it is not the outcome of a Nash equilibrium? (ii) Rational construction: given an action profile's outcome, can the endowed resources be redistributed so that it is the outcome of a Nash equilibrium? Among other results, we prove that all three problems are PSPACE-complete when the resources are described in the very expressive language of the propositional multiplicative and additive linear logic. We also identify a new modest fragment of linear logic that we call MULT, suitable to represent multisets and reason about the inclusion and equality of bags of resources. We show that when the resources are described in MULT, the problem of deciding whether a profile is a Nash equilibrium is in PTIME.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Reasoning about Social Choice Functions

We introduce a logic specifically designed to support reasoning about social choice functions. The logic includes operators to capture strategic ability, and operators to capture agent preferences. We establish a correspondence between formulae in the logic and properties of social choice functions, and show that the logic is expressively complete with respect to social choice functions, i.e., that every social choice function can be characterised as a formula of the logic. We prove that the logic is decidable, and give a complete axiomatization. To demonstrate the value of the logic, we show in particular how it can be applied to the problem of determining whether a social choice function is strategy-proof.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2007arXiv

Alternative axiomatics and complexity of deliberative STIT theories

We propose two alternatives to Xu's axiomatization of the Chellas STIT. The first one also provides an alternative axiomatization of the deliberative STIT. The second one starts from the idea that the historic necessity operator can be defined as an abbreviation of operators of agency, and can thus be eliminated from the logic of the Chellas STIT. The second axiomatization also allows us to establish that the problem of deciding the satisfiability of a STIT formula without temporal operators is NP-complete in the single-agent case, and is NEXPTIME-complete in the multiagent case, both for the deliberative and the Chellas' STIT.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access