On Promptness in Parity Games

Parity games are infinite-duration two-player turn-based games that provide powerful 6 formal-method techniques for the automatic synthesis and verification of distributed and reactive 7 systems. This kind of game emerges as a natural evaluation technique for the solution of the μ8 calculus model-checking problem and is closely related to alternating ω-automata. Due to these strict 9 connections, parity games are a well-established environment to describe liveness properties such 10 as “every request that occurs infinitely often is eventually responded”. Unfortunately, the classical 11 form of such a condition suffers from the strong drawback that there is no bound on the effective 12 time that separates a request from its response, i.e., responses are not promptly provided. Recently, to 13 overcome this limitation, several variants of parity game have been proposed, in which quantitative 14 requirements are added to the classic qualitative ones. In this paper, we make a general study of the 15 concept of promptness in parity games that allows to put under a unique theoretical framework several 16 of the cited variants along with new ones. Also, we describe simple polynomial reductions from all 17 these conditions to either Büchi or parity games, which simplify all previous known procedures. In 18 particular, they allow to lower the complexity class of cost and bounded-cost parity games recently 19 introduced. Indeed, we provide solution algorithms showing that determining the winner of these 20 games is in UPTIME ∩ COUPTIME. 21

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

[2]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Typeness for omega-regular Automata , 2004, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Martin Zimmermann,et al.  Cost-Parity and Cost-Streett Games , 2012, FSTTCS.

[4]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Reasoning About Strategies: On the Model-Checking Problem , 2011, ArXiv.

[5]  Igor Walukiewicz,et al.  Pushdown Processes: Games and Model-Checking , 1996, Inf. Comput..

[6]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Finitary winning in ω-regular games , 2009, TOCL.

[7]  MüllerPeter,et al.  Specification and verification , 2011 .

[8]  Wieslaw Zielonka,et al.  Infinite Games on Finitely Coloured Graphs with Applications to Automata on Infinite Trees , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Michael Luttenberger,et al.  Solving Parity Games on the GPU , 2013, ATVA.

[10]  Aniello Murano,et al.  A Behavioral Hierarchy of Strategy Logic , 2014, CLIMA.

[11]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Synthesis of hierarchical systems , 2011, Sci. Comput. Program..

[12]  Marcin Jurdzinski,et al.  Small Progress Measures for Solving Parity Games , 2000, STACS.

[13]  Freark van der Berg Solving Parity Games on the Playstation 3 , 2010 .

[14]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Generalized Mean-payoff and Energy Games , 2010, FSTTCS.

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

[16]  Fred Kröger,et al.  Temporal Logic of Programs , 1987, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

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

[18]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic , 1981, Logic of Programs.

[19]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  Module Checking Revisited , 1997, CAV.

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

[21]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  MCMAS-SLK: A Model Checker for the Verification of Strategy Logic Specifications , 2014, CAV.

[22]  Igor Walukiewicz,et al.  Pushdown Games with Unboundedness and Regular Conditions , 2003, FSTTCS.

[23]  Uri Zwick,et al.  A deterministic subexponential algorithm for solving parity games , 2006, SODA '06.

[24]  Aniello Murano,et al.  What Makes Atl* Decidable? A Decidable Fragment of Strategy Logic , 2012, CONCUR.

[25]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Quantitative stochastic parity games , 2004, SODA '04.

[26]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  From liveness to promptness , 2007, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[27]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  Module Checking , 1996, Inf. Comput..

[28]  Yoram Hirshfeld,et al.  Promptness in omega-Regular Automata , 2010, ATVA.

[29]  Axel Legay,et al.  Pushdown module checking with imperfect information , 2013, Inf. Comput..

[30]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Improved model checking of hierarchical systems , 2010, Inf. Comput..

[31]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Solving Parity Games in Scala , 2014, FACS.

[32]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking , 2000, JACM.

[33]  Aniello Murano,et al.  Improved model checking of hierarchical systems , 2012, Inf. Comput..

[34]  Stephan Merz,et al.  Model Checking , 2000 .

[35]  Florian Horn,et al.  Optimal Strategy Synthesis in Request-Response Games , 2008, ATVA.

[36]  Dexter Kozen,et al.  RESULTS ON THE PROPOSITIONAL’p-CALCULUS , 2001 .

[37]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Energy Parity Games , 2010, ICALP.

[38]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Finitary fairness , 1998, TOPL.