Games with secure equilibria

In 2-player nonzero-sum games, Nash equilibria capture the options for rational behavior if each player attempts to maximize her payoff. In contrast to classical game theory, we consider lexicographic objectives: first, each player tries to maximize her own payoff, and then, the player tries to minimize the opponent's payoff. Such objectives arise naturally in the verification of systems with multiple components. There, instead of proving that each component satisfies its specification no matter how the other components behave, it often suffices to prove that each component satisfies its specification provided that the other components satisfy their specifications. We say that a Nash equilibrium is secure if it is an equilibrium with respect to the lexicographic objectives of both players. We prove that in graph games with Borel objectives, which include the games that arise in verification, there may be several Nash equilibria, but there is always a unique maximal payoff profile of secure equilibria. We show how this equilibrium can be computed in the case of /spl omega/-regular objectives, and we characterize the memory requirements of strategies that achieve the equilibrium.

[1]  Kedar S. Namjoshi,et al.  Abstract Patterns of Compositional Reasoning , 2003, CONCUR.

[2]  Cnrs Fre,et al.  Model Checking a Path (Preliminary Report) , 2003 .

[3]  L. Staiger Languages , 1997, Practice and Procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

[4]  Donald A. Martin,et al.  The determinacy of Blackwell games , 1998, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[5]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[6]  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.

[7]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Handbook of Formal Languages , 1997, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

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

[9]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Reactive Modules , 1996, Proceedings 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[10]  Martín Abadi,et al.  Conjoining specifications , 1995, TOPL.

[11]  Wolfgang Thomas,et al.  On the Synthesis of Strategies in Infinite Games , 1995, STACS.

[12]  Jim Alves-Foss,et al.  Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications 8th International Workshop, Aspen Grove, Ut, Usa, September 11-14, 1995 : Proceedings , 1995 .

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

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

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

[16]  S. Safra,et al.  On the complexity of omega -automata , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[17]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[18]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  An Automata-Theoretic Approach to Automatic Program Verification (Preliminary Report) , 1986, LICS.

[19]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their linear specification , 1985, POPL.

[20]  Ferenc Gécseg,et al.  Tree Automata , 2015, ArXiv.

[21]  J. Nash Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. , 1950, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.