Advertisement

Obliging Games

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee
  • Florian Horn
  • Christof Löding
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6269)

Abstract

Graph games of infinite length provide a natural model for open reactive systems: one player (Eve) represents the controller and the other player (Adam) represents the environment. The evolution of the system depends on the decisions of both players. The specification for the system is usually given as an ω-regular language L over paths and Eve’s goal is to ensure that the play belongs to L irrespective of Adam’s behaviour.

The classical notion of winning strategies fails to capture several interesting scenarios. For example, strong fairness (Streett) conditions are specified by a number of request-grant pairs and require every pair that is requested infinitely often to be granted infinitely often: Eve might win just by preventing Adam from making any new request, but a “better” strategy would allow Adam to make as many requests as possible and still ensure fairness.

To address such questions, we introduce the notion of obliging games, where Eve has to ensure a strong condition Φ, while always allowing Adam to satisfy a weak condition Ψ. We present a linear time reduction of obliging games with two Muller conditions Φ and Ψ to classical Muller games. We consider obliging Streett games and show they are co-NP complete, and show a natural quantitative optimisation problem for obliging Streett games is in FNP. We also show how obliging games can provide new and interesting semantics for multi-player games.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Weak Condition Winning Strategy Memory Content Classical Game 
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. [BJW02]
    Bernet, J., Janin, D., Walukiewicz, I.: Permissive strategies: from parity games to safety games. Theoretical Informatics and Applications 36(3), 261–275 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [BL69]
    Büchi, J.R., Landweber, L.H.: Solving Sequential Conditions by Finite-State Strategies. Transactions of the AMS 138, 295–311 (1969)Google Scholar
  3. [BontempsSL04]
    Bontemps, Y., Schobbens, P.-Y., Löding, C.: Synthesis of Open Reactive Systems from Scenario-Based Specifications. Fundamenta Informaticae 62(2), 139–169 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [Chu62]
    Church, A.: Logic, arithmetic, and automata. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, pp. 23–35 (1962)Google Scholar
  5. [CMJ04]
    Chatterjee, K., Majumdar, R., Jurdziński, M.: On Nash Equilibria in Stochastic Games. In: Marcinkowski, J., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) CSL 2004. LNCS, vol. 3210, pp. 26–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [DJW97]
    Dziembowski, S., Jurdziński, M., Walukiewicz, I.: How Much Memory is Needed to Win Infinite Games? In: Proceedings of LICS, pp. 99–110. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  7. [EJ88]
    Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.S.: The Complexity of Tree Automata and Logics of Programs. In: Proceedings of FOCS, pp. 328–337. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar
  8. [Koz83]
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional μ-calculus. TCS 27(3), 333–354 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [PR89]
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the Synthesis of a Reactive Module. In: Proceedings of POPL, pp. 179–190. ACM, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  10. [RW87]
    Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete-event processes. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 25(1), 206–230 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [Sti01]
    Stirling, C.: Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  12. [Tho97]
    Thomas, W.: Languages, Automata, and Logic. In: Handbook of Formal Languages. Beyond Words, vol. 3, ch. 7, pp. 389–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  13. [Umm08]
    Ummels, M.: The Complexity of Nash Equilibria in Infinite Multiplayer Games. In: Amadio, R.M. (ed.) FOSSACS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4962, pp. 20–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Zie98]
    Zielonka, W.: Infinite Games on Finitely Coloured Graphs with Applications to Automata on Infinite Trees. Theoretical Computer Science 200(1-2), 135–183 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee
    • 1
  • Florian Horn
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christof Löding
    • 3
  1. 1.IST Austria Institute of Science and Technology Austria 
  2. 2.CNRS, LIAFA, Université Paris 7France
  3. 3.RWTH AachenGermany

Personalised recommendations