Symbolic Algorithms for Infinite-State Games

  • Luca de Alfaro
  • Thomas A. Henzinger
  • Rupak Majumdar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2154)


A procedure for the analysis of state spaces is called symbolic if it manipulates not individual states, but sets of states that are represented by constraints. Such a procedure can be used for the analysis of infinite state spaces, provided termination is guaranteed. We present symbolic procedures, and corresponding termination criteria, for the solution of infinite-state games, which occur in the control and modular verification of infinite-state systems. To characterize the termination of symbolic procedures for solving infinite-state games, we classify these game structures into four increasingly restrictive categories:
  1. 1

    Class 1 consists of infinite-state structures for which all safety and reachability games can be solved.

  2. 2

    Class 2 consists of infinite-state structures for which all ω-regular games can be solved.

  3. 3

    Class 3 consists of infinite-state structures for which all nested positive boolean combinations of ω-regular games can be solved.

  4. 4

    Class 4 consists of infinite-state structures for which all nested boolean combinations of ω-regular games can be solved.


We give a structural characterization for each class, using equivalence relations on the state spaces of games which range from game versions of trace equivalence to a game version of bisimilarity. We provide infinite-state examples for all four classes of games from control problems for hybrid systems. We conclude by presenting symbolic algorithms for the synthesis of winning strategies (“controller synthesis”) for infinitestate games with arbitrary ω-regular objectives, and prove termination over all class-2 structures. This settles, in particular, the symbolic controller synthesis problem for rectangular hybrid systems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Abdulla and B. Jonsson. Verifying networks of timed automata. In TACAS 98, LNCS 1384, pp. 298–312. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Alur and D. Dill. A theory of timed automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 126:183–235, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Alur, T. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. In FOCS 97, pp. 100–109. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Alur, T. Henzinger, O. Kupferman, and M. Vardi. Alternating refinement relations. In CONCUR 97, LNCS 1466, pp. 163–178. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Bouajjani, J.-C. Fernandez, and N. Halbwachs. Minimal model generation. In CAV 90, LNCS 531, pp. 197–203. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Büchi and L. Landweber. Solving sequential conditions by finite-state strategies. Transactions of the AMS, 138:295–311, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Emerson and C. Jutla. Tree automata, mu-calculus, and determinacy. In FOCS 91, pp. 368–377. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Emerson, C. Jutla, and A. Sistla. On model checking for fragments of μ-calculus. In CAV 93, LNCS 697, pp. 385–396. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Henzinger, P.-H. Ho, and H. Wong-Toi. HyTech: a model checker for hybrid systems. Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 1:110–122, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Henzinger, B. Horowitz, and R. Majumdar. Rectangular hybrid games. In CONCUR 99, LNCS 1664, pp. 320–335. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Henzinger and R. Majumdar. A classification of symbolic transition systems. In STACS 2000, LNCS 1770, pp. 13–35. Springer-Verlag, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Henzinger, X. Nicollin, J. Sifakis, and S. Yovine. Symbolic model checking for real-time systems. Information and Computation, 111:193–244, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Kanellakis and S. Smolka. CCS expressions, finite-state processes, and three problems of equivalence. Information and Computation, 86:43–68, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Kozen. Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science, 27:333–354, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O. Maler, A. Pnueli, and J. Sifakis. On the synthesis of discrete controllers for timed systems. In STACS 95, LNCS 900, pp. 229–242. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. McNaughton. Infinite games played on finite graphs. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 65:149–184, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Mostowski. Regular expressions for infinite trees and a standard form of automata. In Symp. Comp. Theory, LNCS 208, pp. 157–168. Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Ramadge and W. Wonham. Supervisory control of a class of discrete-event processes. SIAM J. Control and Optimization, 25:206–230, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. In J. van Leeuwen, ed., Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, pp. 133–191. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Thomas. On the synthesis of strategies in infinite games. In STACS 95, LNCS 900, pp. 1–13. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca de Alfaro
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Henzinger
    • 1
  • Rupak Majumdar
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrical Engineering and Computer SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations