Advertisement

The Complexity of Request-Response Games

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee
  • Thomas A. Henzinger
  • Florian Horn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6638)

Abstract

We consider two-player graph games whose objectives are request-response condition, i.e conjunctions of conditions of the form “if a state with property Rq is visited, then later a state with property Rp is visited”. The winner of such games can be decided in EXPTIME and the problem is known to be NP-hard. In this paper, we close this gap by showing that this problem is, in fact, EXPTIME-complete. We show that the problem becomes PSPACE-complete if we only consider games played on DAGs, and NP-complete or PTIME-complete if there is only one player (depending on whether he wants to enforce or spoil the request-response condition).

We also present near-optimal bounds on the memory needed to design winning strategies for each player, in each case.

Keywords

Memory State Winning Strategy Linear Time Temporal Logic Winning Region Opposing Player 
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.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. JACM 49, 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandra, A.K., Kozen, D., Stockmeyer, L.J.: Alternation. J. ACM 28(1), 114–133 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T., Horn, F.: Finitary winning in ω-regular games. ACM ToCL 11(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dziembowski, S., Jurdziński, M., Walukiewicz, I.: How much memory is needed to win infinite games? In: Logic In Computer Science, pp. 99–110. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emerson, E., Jutla, C.: The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In: Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 328–337. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: POPL, pp. 179–190. ACM, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramadge, P., Wonham, W.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete-event processes. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization 25, 206–230 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reif, J.H.: The complexity of two-player games of incomplete information. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 29(2), 274–301 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas, W.: Languages, automata, and logic. Handbook of Formal Languages 3, 389–455 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wallmeier, N., Hütten, P., Thomas, W.: Symbolic synthesis of finite-state controllers for request-response specifications. In: Ibarra, O.H., Dang, Z. (eds.) CIAA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2759, pp. 11–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walukiewicz, I.: Pushdown processes: Games and model-checking. Inf. Comput. 164(2), 234–263 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Henzinger
    • 1
  • Florian Horn
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IST (Institute of Science and Technology)Austria
  2. 2.LIAFA, CNRS & UniversitéParis 7France

Personalised recommendations