Advertisement

Probabilistic game automata

Preliminary version
  • Anne Condon
  • Richard Ladner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 223)

Abstract

We define a probabilistic game automaton, a general model of a two-person game. We show how this model includes as special cases the games against nature of Papadimitriou [9], the Arthur-Merlin games of Babai [1] andthe interactive proof systems of Goldwasser, Micali and Rackoff [5]. We prove a number of results about another special case, games against unknown nature, which is a generalization of games against nature. In our notation, we let UP(UC, resp.) denote the class of two-person games with unbounded two-sided error where one player plays randomly with partial information (complete information, resp.) and the otherplayer plays existentially. Hence, the designation UC refers to games against known nature andUP refers to games against unknown nature. We show that
$$\begin{gathered}ATIME(t(n)) = UC - TIME(t(n)) \subseteq UP - TIME(t(n)) \subseteq UC - TIME(t^2 (n)) \hfill \\ASPACE(s(n)) = UC - SPACE(s(n)) \subseteq UP - SPACE(log(s(n))) \hfill \\\end{gathered}$$
where ATIME and ASPACE refer to alternating time and spacerespectively. We assume that all the space and time bounds are deterministically constructible and s(n)=Ω(n). The equalityATIME(t(n))=UC-TIME(t(n)) is due to Papadimitriou[9]. All the other inclusions above except one involve the simulation of one game by another. The exception is the result that UC-SPACE(s(n))⊑ASPACE(s(n)) which is shown byreducing a certain game theoretic problem to linear programming.

Keywords

Turing Machine Computation Tree Visible Part Winning Strategy Unknown Nature 
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]
    L. BABAI, Trading group theory for randomness, Proc. 17th ACM Symp. Theory of Computing (1985), 421–429.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. K. CHANDRA, D.C. KOZEN AND L.J. STOCKMEYER, Alternation, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28, No. 1 (1981), 114–133.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. GILL, The computational complexity of probabilistic Turing machines, SIAM J. Comput. 6 (1977), 675–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. DERMAN, Finite State Markov Decision Processes, Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. GOLDWASSER, S. MICALI AND C. RACKOFF, The knowledge complexity of interactive protocols, Proc. 17th ACM Symp. Theory of Computing (1985), 291–304.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    HOWARD, Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes, M.I.T. press, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L.G. KHACHIYAN, A Polynimial algorithm in linear programming, Soviet Math Dokl. 20, (1979) 191–194.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R.E. LADNER AND J.K. NORMAN, Solitaire automata, J. Comput. System Sci. 30, No.1 (1985) 116–129.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. H. PAPADIMITRIOU, Games against nature, Proc. 24th IEE Symp. Found. Comp. Sci., (1983), 446–450.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. L. PETERSON AND J. H. REIF, Multiple person alternation, Proc. 20th IEE Symp. Found. Comp. Sci., (1979), 348–363.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.H. REIF, The complexity of two-player games of incomplete information, J. Comput. System Sci. 29, No.2 (1984) 274–301.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. SIPSER AND S. GOLDWASSER, Public Coins versus Private Coins in Interactive Proof Systems, Proc. 18th ACM Symp. Theory of Computing (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Condon
    • 1
  • Richard Ladner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations