Advertisement

An Optimal Strategy Improvement Algorithm for Solving Parity and Payoff Games

  • Sven Schewe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5213)

Abstract

This paper presents a novel strategy improvement algorithm for parity and payoff games, which is guaranteed to select, in each improvement step, an optimal combination of local strategy modifications. Current strategy improvement methods stepwise improve the strategy of one player with respect to some ranking function, using an algorithm with two distinct phases: They first choose a modification to the strategy of one player from a list of locally profitable changes, and subsequently evaluate the modified strategy. This separation is unfortunate, because current strategy improvement algorithms have no effective means to predict the global effect of the individual local modifications beyond classifying them as profitable, adversarial, or stale. Furthermore, they are completely blind towards the cross effect of different modifications: Applying one profitable modification may render all other profitable modifications adversarial. Our new construction overcomes the traditional separation between choosing and evaluating the modification to the strategy. It thus improves over current strategy improvement algorithms by providing the optimal improvement in every step, selecting the best combination of local updates from a superset of all profitable and stale changes.

Keywords

Ranking Function Tree Automaton Local Update Winning Region Improvement Step 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.S., Sistla, A.P.: On model-checking for fragments of μ-calculus. In: Proc. CAV, pp. 385–396 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilke, T.: Alternating tree automata, parity games, and modal μ-calculus. Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. 8(2) (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Alfaro, L., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R.: From verification to control: Dynamic programs for omega-regular objectives. In: Proc. LICS, pp. 279–290. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about the past with two-way automata. In: Larsen, K.G., Skyum, S., Winskel, G. (eds.) ICALP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1443, pp. 628–641. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schewe, S., Finkbeiner, B.: The alternating-time μ-calculus and automata over concurrent game structures. In: Proc. CSL, pp. 591–605. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piterman, N.: From nondeterministic Büchi and Streett automata to deterministic parity automata. In: Proc. LICS, pp. 255–264. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schewe, S., Finkbeiner, B.: Synthesis of asynchronous systems. In: Puebla, G. (ed.) LOPSTR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4407, pp. 127–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emerson, E.A., Lei, C.: Efcient model checking in fragments of the propositional μ-calculus. In: Proc. LICS, pp. 267–278. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.S.: Tree automata, μ-calculus and determinacy. In: Proc. FOCS, pp. 368–377. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNaughton, R.: Infinite games played on finite graphs. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 65(2), 149–184 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zwick, U., Paterson, M.S.: The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 158(1–2), 343–359 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Browne, A., Clarke, E.M., Jha, S., Long, D.E., Marrero, W.: An improved algorithm for the evaluation of fixpoint expressions. Theoretical Computer Science 178(1–2), 237–255 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zielonka, W.: Infinite games on finitely coloured graphs with applications to automata on infinite trees. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200(1-2), 135–183 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jurdziński, M.: Small progress measures for solving parity games. In: Reichel, H., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1770, pp. 290–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ludwig, W.: A subexponential randomized algorithm for the simple stochastic game problem. Inf. Comput. 117(1), 151–155 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puri, A.: Theory of hybrid systems and discrete event systems. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, University of California, Berkeley (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vöge, J., Jurdziński, M.: A discrete strategy improvement algorithm for solving parity games. In: Proc. CAV, pp. 202–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Björklund, H., Vorobyov, S.: A combinatorial strongly subexponential strategy improvement algorithm for mean payoff games. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(2), 210–229 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Obdržálek, J.: Fast mu-calculus model checking when tree-width is bounded. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 80–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lange, M.: Solving parity games by a reduction to SAT. In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Games in Design and Verification (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berwanger, D., Dawar, A., Hunter, P., Kreutzer, S.: Dag-width and parity games. In: Durand, B., Thomas, W. (eds.) STACS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3884, pp. 524–536. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jurdziński, M., Paterson, M., Zwick, U.: A deterministic subexponential algorithm for solving parity games. In: Proc. SODA, pp. 117–123. ACM/SIAM (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schewe, S.: Solving parity games in big steps. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds.) FSTTCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4855, pp. 449–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takaoka, T.: Theory of 2-3 heaps. In: Asano, T., Imai, H., Lee, D.T., Nakano, S.-i., Tokuyama, T. (eds.) COCOON 1999. LNCS, vol. 1627, pp. 41–50. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schewe, S.: Synthesis of Distributed Systems. PhD thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smale, S.: On the average number of steps of the simplex method of linear programming. Mathematical Programming 27(3), 241–262 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klee, F., Minty, G.J.: How good is the simplex algorithm? Inequalities III, pp. 159–175 (1972)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Schewe
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität des Saarlandes and University of Liverpool 

Personalised recommendations