{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,31]],"date-time":"2025-10-31T07:51:56Z","timestamp":1761897116835},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)","issue":"01","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,17]],"date-time":"2019-07-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1563321600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.aaai.org"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["AAAI"],"abstract":"<jats:p>In the design of complex systems, model-checking and satisfiability arise as two prominent decision problems. While model-checking requires the designed system to be provided in advance, satisfiability allows to check if such a system even exists. With very few exceptions, the second problem turns out to be harder than the first one from a complexity-theoretic standpoint. In this paper, we investigate the connection between the two problems for a non-trivial fragment of Strategy Logic (SL, for short). SL extends LTL with first-order quantifications over strategies, thus allowing to explicitly reason about the strategic abilities of agents in a multi-agent system. Satisfiability for the full logic is known to be highly undecidable, while model-checking is non-elementary.The SL fragment we consider is obtained by preventing strategic quantifications within the scope of temporal operators. The resulting logic is quite powerful, still allowing to express important game-theoretic properties of multi-agent systems, such as existence of Nash and immune equilibria, as well as to formalize the rational synthesis problem. We show that satisfiability for such a fragment is PSPACE-COMPLETE, while its model-checking complexity is 2EXPTIME-HARD. The result is obtained by means of an elegant encoding of the problem into the satisfiability of conjunctive-binding first-order logic, a recently discovered decidable fragment of first-order logic.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1609\/aaai.v33i01.33012638","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,9]],"date-time":"2019-09-09T07:41:06Z","timestamp":1568014866000},"page":"2638-2645","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Satisfiability in Strategy Logic Can Be Easier than Model Checking"],"prefix":"10.1609","volume":"33","author":[{"given":"Erman","family":"Acar","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Massimo","family":"Benerecetti","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Fabio","family":"Mogavero","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"9382","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,17]]},"container-title":["Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/ojs.aaai.org\/index.php\/AAAI\/article\/download\/4112\/3990","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/ojs.aaai.org\/index.php\/AAAI\/article\/download\/4112\/3990","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,11,7]],"date-time":"2022-11-07T06:42:35Z","timestamp":1667803355000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ojs.aaai.org\/index.php\/AAAI\/article\/view\/4112"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,17]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"01","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,23]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1609\/aaai.v33i01.33012638","relation":{},"ISSN":["2374-3468","2159-5399"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2374-3468","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2159-5399","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,17]]}}}