Fair Simulation Relations, Parity Games, and State Space Reduction for Büchi Automata

  • Kousha Etessami
  • Thomas Wilke
  • Rebecca A. Schuller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2076)


We give efficient algorithms, beating or matching optimal known bounds, for computing a variety of simulation relations on the state space of a Büchi automaton. Our algorithms are derived via a unified and simple parity-game framework. This framework incorporates previously studied notions like fair and direct simulation, but our main motivation is state space reduction, and for this purpose we introduce a new natural notion of simulation, called delayed simulation. We show that, unlike fair simulation, delayed simulation preserves the automaton language upon quotienting, and that it allows substantially better state reduction than direct simulation.We use the parity-game approach, based on a recent algorithm by Jurdzinski, to efficiently compute all the above simulation relations. In particular, we obtain an O(mn 3)-time and O(mn)-space algorithm for computing both the delayed and fair simulation relations. The best prior algorithm for fair simulation requires time O(n 6) ([HKR97]).

Our framework also allows one to compute bisimulations efficiently: we compute the fair bisimulation relation in O(mn 3) time and O(mn) space, whereas the best prior algorithm for fair bisimulation requires time O(n 10) ([HR00]).


Model Check Direct Simulation Winning Strategy Tree Automaton Simulation Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [And94]
    H. Andersen. Model checking and boolean graphs. TCS, 126(1):3–30, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [BG00]
    D. Bustan and O. Grumberg. Checking for fair simulation in models with Büchi fairness constraints, Dec. 2000. Tech. Rep. TR-CS-2000-13, Technion.Google Scholar
  3. [BP95]
    B. Bloom and R. Paige. Transformational design and implementation of a new effcient solution to the ready simulation problem. Science of Computer Programming, 24(3):189–220, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [DHWT91]
    D. L. Dill, A. J. Hu, and H. Wong-Toi. Checking for language inclusion using simulation relations. In Proceedings of CAV’91, pages 329–341, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [EH00]
    K. Etessami and G. Holzmann. Optimizing Büchi automata. In Proc. of 11th Int. Conf on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR), pages 153–167, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. [GL94]
    O. Grumberg and D. Long. Model checking and modular verification. ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):843–871, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [HHK95]
    M. Henzinger, T. Henzinger, and P. Kopke. Computing simulations on finite and infinite graphs. In Proc. of 36th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Comp. Sci. (FOCS’95), pages 453–462, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [HKR97]
    T. Henzinger, O. Kupferman, and S. Rajamani. Fair simulation. In Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’97), number 1243 in LNCS, pages 273–287, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [HR00]
    T. Henzinger and S. Rajamani. Fair bisimulation. In TACAS, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [Jur00]
    M. Jurdziński. Small progress measures for solving parity games. In STACS 2000, 17th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 1770 of LNCS, pages 290–301. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [Kla94]
    N. Klarlund. Progress measures,immediate determinacy, & a subset construction for tree automata. Ann. Pure & Applied Logic, 69:243–268, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [KV98]
    O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Weak alternating automata are not that weak. In Proc. 30th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [Mil89]
    R. Milner. Communicatation and Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [PT87]
    R. Paige and R. E. Tarjan. Three partition-refinement algorithms. SIAM J. of Computing, 16(6):973–989, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [SB00]
    F. Somenzi and R. Bloem. Efficient Büchi automata from LTL formulae. In Proceedings of 12th Int. Conf. on Computer Aided Verification, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. [Wal96]
    I. Walukiewicz. Pushdown processes: games and model checking. In Computer Aided Verification, LNCS, pages 62–75. springer-verlag, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kousha Etessami
    • 1
  • Thomas Wilke
    • 2
  • Rebecca A. Schuller
    • 3
  1. 1.Bell LabsMurray Hill
  2. 2.Christian Albrecht UniversityKielGermany
  3. 3.Cornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations