Strategy Composition in Compositional Games

  • Marcus Gelderie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7966)


When studying games played on finite arenas, the arena is given explicitly, hiding the underlying structure of the arena. We study games where the global arena is a product of several smaller, constituent arenas. We investigate how these “global games” can be solved by playing “component games” on the constituent arenas. To this end, we introduce two kinds of products of arenas. Moreover, we define a suitable notion of strategy composition and show how, for the first notion of product, winning strategies in reachability games can be composed from winning strategies in games on the constituent arenas. For the second kind of product, the complexity of solving the global game shows that a general composition theorem is equivalent to proving Pspace = Exptime.


Turing Machine Winning Strategy Reachability Condition Positional Strategy Polynomial Size 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Büchi, J.R., Landweber, L.H.: Solving Sequential Conditions by Finite-State Strategies. Trans. of the AMS 138, 295–311 (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNaughton, R.: Infinite games played on finite graphs. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 65(2), 149–184 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zielonka, W.: Infinite games on finitely coloured graphs with applications to automata on infinite trees. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200, 135–183 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grädel, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T. (eds.): Automata logics, and infinite games: a guide to current research. Springer, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Löding, C.: Infinite games and automata theory. In: Apt, K.R., Grädel, E. (eds.) Lectures in Game Theory for Computer Scientists. Cambridge U. P. (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fearnley, J., Peled, D., Schewe, S.: Synthesis of succinct systems. In: Chakraborty, S., Mukund, M. (eds.) ATVA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7561, pp. 208–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: On the complexity of verifying concurrent transition systems. Inf. Comput. 173(2), 143–161 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelderie, M.: Strategy machines and their complexity. In: Rovan, B., Sassone, V., Widmayer, P. (eds.) MFCS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7464, pp. 431–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldin, D.Q., Smolka, S.A., Wegner, P.: Turing machines, transition systems, and interaction. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 52(1), 120–136 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunter, P., Dawar, A.: Complexity bounds for regular games (extended abstract). In: Jedrzejowicz, J., Szepietowski, A. (eds.) MFCS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3618, pp. 495–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dawar, A., Horn, F., Hunter, P.: Complexity Bounds for Muller Games. Theoretical Computer Science (2011) (submitted)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horn, F.: Explicit Muller Games are PTIME. In: FSTTCS, pp. 235–243 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcus Gelderie
    • 1
  1. 1.Logic and Theory of Discrete SystemsRWTH AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations