On the Complexity of Parity Games

Parity games underlie the model checking problem for the modal µ-calculus, the complexity of which remains unresolved after more than two decades of intensive research. The community is split into those who believe this problem - which is known to be both in NP and coNP - has a polynomial-time solution (without the assumption that P = NP) and those who believe that it does not. (A third, pessimistic, faction believes that the answer to this question will remain unknown in their lifetime.) In this paper we explore the possibility of employing Bounded Arithmetic to resolve this question, motivated by the fact that problems which are both NP and coNP, and where the equivalence between their NP and coNP description can be formulated and proved within a certain fragment of Bounded Arithmetic, necessarily admit a polynomial-time solution. While the problem remains unresolved by this paper, we do proposed another approach, and at the very least provide a modest refinement to the complexity of parity games (and in turn the µ-calculus model checking problem): that they lie in the class PLS of Polynomial Local Search problems. This result is based on a new proof of memoryless determinacy which can be formalised in Bounded Arithmetic. The approach we propose may offer a route to a polynomial-time solution. Alternatively, there may be scope in devising a reduction between the problem and some other problem which is hard with respect to PLS, thus making the discovery of a polynomial-time solution unlikely according to current wisdom.

[1]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  Automata, Tableaux and Temporal Logics (Extended Abstract) , 1985, Logic of Programs.

[2]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  How easy is local search? , 1985, 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1985).

[3]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  Tree automata, mu-calculus and determinacy , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[4]  S. Buss,et al.  An Application of Boolean Complexity to Separation Problems in Bounded Arithmetic , 1994 .

[5]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes , 2001, Texts in Computer Science.

[6]  W. Zielonka In nite games on nitely coloured graphs with applications to automata on in nite trees , 1998 .

[7]  E. Emerson,et al.  Tree Automata, Mu-Calculus and Determinacy (Extended Abstract) , 1991, FOCS 1991.

[8]  Thomas Wilke,et al.  Automata Logics, and Infinite Games , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  M. Paterson,et al.  A deterministic subexponential algorithm for solving parity games , 2006, SODA 2006.

[10]  Henrik Björklund,et al.  Randomized Subexponential Algorithms for Infinite Games , 2004 .

[11]  Marcin Jurdziński,et al.  Deciding the Winner in Parity Games is in UP \cap co-Up , 1998, Inf. Process. Lett..

[12]  Robert McNaughton,et al.  Infinite Games Played on Finite Graphs , 1993, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic.

[13]  Marcin Jurdzinski,et al.  A Discrete Strategy Improvement Algorithm for Solving Parity Games , 2000, CAV.

[14]  A. Ehrenfeucht,et al.  Positional strategies for mean payoff games , 1979 .

[15]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  The Relative Complexity of NP Search Problems , 1998, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[16]  Henrik Björklund,et al.  Memoryless determinacy of parity and mean payoff games: a simple proof , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[17]  W. Browder,et al.  Annals of Mathematics , 1889 .