An Optimal Value Iteration Algorithm for Parity Games

The quest for a polynomial time algorithm for solving parity games gained momentum in 2017 when two different quasipolynomial time algorithms were constructed. In this paper, we further analyse the second algorithm due to Jurdzi\'nski and Lazi\'c and called the succinct progress measure algorithm. It was presented as an improvement over a previous algorithm called the small progress measure algorithm, using a better data structure. The starting point of this paper is the observation that the underlying data structure for both progress measure algorithms are (subgraph-)universal trees. We show that in fact any universal tree gives rise to a value iteration algorithm \`a la succinct progress measure, and the complexity of the algorithm is proportional to the size of the chosen universal tree. We then show that both algorithms are instances of this generic algorithm for two constructions of universal trees, the first of exponential size (for small progress measure) and the second of quasipolynomial size (for succinct progress measure). The technical result of this paper is to show that the latter construction is asymptotically tight: universal trees have at least quasipolynomial size. This suggests that the succinct progress measure algorithm of Jurdzi\'nski and Lazi\'c is in this framework optimal, and that the polynomial time algorithm for parity games is hiding someplace else.

[1]  Marcin Jurdzinski,et al.  Succinct progress measures for solving parity games , 2017, 2017 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS).

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

[3]  J. Richard Büchi State-Strategies for Games in F G , 1983, J. Symb. Log..

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

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

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

[7]  Cristian S. Calude,et al.  Deciding parity games in quasipolynomial time , 2017, STOC.

[8]  Andrzej Wlodzimierz Mostowski,et al.  Regular expressions for infinite trees and a standard form of automata , 1984, Symposium on Computation Theory.

[9]  J. Meigs,et al.  WHO Technical Report , 1954, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[10]  M. Rabin Decidability of second-order theories and automata on infinite trees , 1968 .

[11]  S. Shelah,et al.  Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 1991 .

[12]  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.

[13]  M. Nivat Theoretical Computer Science Volume 213-214 , 1999 .

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

[15]  E. Allen Emerson,et al.  The Propositional Mu-Calculus is Elementary , 1984, ICALP.

[16]  M. K. Gol'dberg,et al.  On minimal universal trees , 1968 .