Advertisement

Abstract

We study strategy improvement algorithms for mean-payoff and parity games. We describe a structural property of these games, and we show that these structures can affect the behaviour of strategy improvement. We show how awareness of these structures can be used to accelerate strategy improvement algorithms. We call our algorithms non-oblivious because they remember properties of the game that they have discovered in previous iterations. We show that non-oblivious strategy improvement algorithms perform well on examples that are known to be hard for oblivious strategy improvement. Hence, we argue that previous strategy improvement algorithms fail because they ignore the structural properties of the game that they are solving.

Keywords

Strategy Improvement Outgoing Edge Winning Strategy Positional Strategy Back Edge 
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.
    Björklund, H., Sandberg, S., Vorobyov, S.: A discrete subexponential algorithm for parity games. In: Alt, H., Habib, M. (eds.) STACS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2607, pp. 663–674. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Björklund, H., Vorobyov, S.: A combinatorial strongly subexponential strategy improvement algorithm for mean payoff games. Discrete Applied Mathematics 155(2), 210–229 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Condon, A.: On algorithms for simple stochastic games. In: Cai, J.-Y. (ed.) Advances in Computational Complexity Theory. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 13, pp. 51–73. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.S., Sistla, A.P.: On model-checking for fragments of μ-calculus. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV 1993. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 385–396. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedmann, O.: A super-polynomial lower bound for the parity game strategy improvement algorithm as we know it. In: Logic in Computer Science (LICS). IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedmann, O.: A super-polynomial lower bound for the parity game strategy improvement algorithm as we know it (January 2009) (preprint)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard, R.: Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes. Technology Press and Wiley (1960)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jurdziński, M., Paterson, M., Zwick, U.: A deterministic subexponential algorithm for solving parity games. In: Proceedings of ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2006, pp. 117–123. ACM/SIAM (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khachiyan, L., Gurvich, V., Zhao, J.: Extending dijkstras algorithm to maximize the shortest path by node-wise limited arc interdiction. In: Grigoriev, D., Harrison, J., Hirsch, E.A. (eds.) CSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 3967, pp. 221–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liggett, T.M., Lippman, S.A.: Stochastic games with perfect information and time average payoff. SIAM Review 11(4), 604–607 (1969)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mansour, Y., Singh, S.P.: On the complexity of policy iteration. In: Laskey, K.B., Prade, H. (eds.) UAI 1999: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 401–408. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Puri, A.: Theory of Hybrid Systems and Discrete Event Systems. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schewe, S.: An optimal strategy improvement algorithm for solving parity and payoff games. In: Kaminski, M., Martini, S. (eds.) CSL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5213, pp. 369–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stirling, C.: Local model checking games (extended abstract). In: Lee, I., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) CONCUR 1995. LNCS, vol. 962, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vöge, J., Jurdziński, M.: A discrete strategy improvement algorithm for solving parity games (Extended abstract). In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 202–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zwick, U., Paterson, M.: The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 158(1-2), 343–359 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Fearnley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickUK

Personalised recommendations