Finitary Winning in omega-Regular Games

Games on graphs with ω-regular objectives provide a model for the control and synthesis of reactive systems. Every ω-regular objective can be decomposed into a safety part and a liveness part. The liveness part ensures that something good happens “eventually.” Two main strengths of the classical, infinite-limit formulation of liveness are robustness (independence from the granularity of transitions) and simplicity (abstraction of complicated time bounds). However, the classical liveness formulation suffers from the drawback that the time until something good happens may be unbounded. A stronger formulation of liveness, so-called finitary liveness, overcomes this drawback, while still retaining robustness and simplicity. Finitary liveness requires that there exists an unknown, fixed bound b such that something good happens within b transitions. While for one-shot liveness (reachability) objectives, classical and finitary liveness coincide, for repeated liveness (Buchi) objectives, the finitary formulation is strictly stronger. In this work we study games with finitary parity and Streett (fairness) objectives. We prove the determinacy of these games, present algorithms for solving these games, and characterize the memory requirements of winning strategies. Our algorithms can be used, for example, for synthesizing controllers that do not let the response time of a system increase without bound.

[1]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  On the synthesis of a reactive module , 1989, POPL '89.

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

[3]  Wolfgang Thomas,et al.  Languages, Automata, and Logic , 1997, Handbook of Formal Languages.

[4]  Igor Walukiewicz,et al.  How much memory is needed to win infinite games? , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

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

[6]  Zohar Manna,et al.  The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems , 1991, Springer New York.

[7]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Bounded Fairness , 2003, Verification: Theory and Practice.

[8]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1999 .

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

[10]  Christof Löding,et al.  Alternating Automata and Logics over Infinite Words , 2000, IFIP TCS.

[11]  Wolfgang Thomas,et al.  Symbolic Synthesis of Finite-State Controllers for Request-Response Specifications , 2003, CIAA.

[12]  Krishnendu Chatterjee,et al.  Linear Time Algorithm for Weak Parity Games , 2008, ArXiv.

[13]  Yuri Gurevich,et al.  Trees, automata, and games , 1982, STOC '82.

[14]  Florian Horn Faster Algorithms for Finitary Games , 2007, TACAS.

[15]  Bowen Alpern,et al.  Defining Liveness , 1984, Inf. Process. Lett..

[16]  Igor Walukiewicz,et al.  Complexity of weak acceptance conditions in tree automata , 2002, Inf. Process. Lett..

[17]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  The Complexity of Tree Automata and Logics of Programs , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..

[18]  Florian Horn Streett Games on Finite Graphs , 2005 .

[19]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Verification: Theory and Practice , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  P. Ramadge,et al.  Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes , 1987 .