  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.
