Qualitative Analysis of Concurrent Mean-payoff Games

We consider concurrent games played by two-players on a finite-state graph, where in every round the players simultaneously choose a move, and the current state along with the joint moves determine the successor state. We study a fundamental objective, namely, mean-payoff objective, where a reward is associated to each transition, and the goal of player 1 is to maximize the long-run average of the rewards, and the objective of player 2 is strictly the opposite. The path constraint for player 1 could be qualitative, i.e., the mean-payoff is the maximal reward, or arbitrarily close to it; or quantitative, i.e., a given threshold between the minimal and maximal reward. We consider the computation of the almost-sure (resp. positive) winning sets, where player 1 can ensure that the path constraint is satisfied with probability 1 (resp. positive probability). Our main results for qualitative path constraints are as follows: (1) we establish qualitative determinacy results that show that for every state either player 1 has a strategy to ensure almost-sure (resp. positive) winning against all player-2 strategies, or player 2 has a spoiling strategy to falsify almost-sure (resp. positive) winning against all player-1 strategies; (2) we present optimal strategy complexity results that precisely characterize the classes of strategies required for almost-sure and positive winning for both players; and (3) we present quadratic time algorithms to compute the almost-sure and the positive winning sets, matching the best known bound of algorithms for much simpler problems (such as reachability objectives). For quantitative constraints we show that a polynomial time solution for the almost-sure or the positive winning set would imply a solution to a long-standing open problem (the value problem for turn-based deterministic mean-payoff games) that is not known to be solvable in polynomial time

Probabilistic modal {\mu}-calculus with independent product

The probabilistic modal {\mu}-calculus is a fixed-point logic designed for expressing properties of probabilistic labeled transition systems (PLTS's). Two equivalent semantics have been studied for this logic, both assigning to each state a value in the interval [0,1] representing the probability that the property expressed by the formula holds at the state. One semantics is denotational and the other is a game semantics, specified in terms of two-player stochastic parity games. A shortcoming of the probabilistic modal {\mu}-calculus is the lack of expressiveness required to encode other important temporal logics for PLTS's such as Probabilistic Computation Tree Logic (PCTL). To address this limitation we extend the logic with a new pair of operators: independent product and coproduct. The resulting logic, called probabilistic modal {\mu}-calculus with independent product, can encode many properties of interest and subsumes the qualitative fragment of PCTL. The main contribution of this paper is the definition of an appropriate game semantics for this extended probabilistic {\mu}-calculus. This relies on the definition of a new class of games which generalize standard two-player stochastic (parity) games by allowing a play to be split into concurrent subplays, each continuing their evolution independently. Our main technical result is the equivalence of the two semantics. The proof is carried out in ZFC set theory extended with Martin's Axiom at an uncountable cardinal

Concurrent games with tail objectives

AbstractWe study infinite stochastic games played by two players over a finite state space, with objectives specified by sets of infinite traces. The games are concurrent (players make moves simultaneously and independently), stochastic (the next state is determined by a probability distribution that depends on the current state and chosen moves of the players) and infinite (proceed for an infinite number of rounds). The analysis of concurrent stochastic games can be classified into: quantitative analysis, analyzing the optimum value of the game and ε-optimal strategies that ensure values within ε of the optimum value; and qualitative analysis, analyzing the set of states with optimum value 1 and ε-optimal strategies for the states with optimum value 1. We consider concurrent games with tail objectives, i.e., objectives that are independent of the finite-prefix of traces, and show that the class of tail objectives is strictly richer than that of the ω-regular objectives. We develop new proof techniques to extend several properties of concurrent games with ω-regular objectives to concurrent games with tail objectives. We prove the positive limit-one property for tail objectives. The positive limit-one property states that for all concurrent games if the optimum value for a player is positive for a tail objective Φ at some state, then there is a state where the optimum value is 1 for the player for the objective Φ. We also show that the optimum values of zero-sum (strictly conflicting objectives) games with tail objectives can be related to equilibrium values of nonzero-sum (not strictly conflicting objectives) games with simpler reachability objectives. A consequence of our analysis presents a polynomial time reduction of the quantitative analysis of tail objectives to the qualitative analysis for the subclass of one-player stochastic games (Markov decision processes)

IST Austria Technical Report

We consider concurrent games played by two-players on a finite state graph, where in every round the players simultaneously choose a move, and the current state along with the joint moves determine the successor state. We study the most fundamental objective for concurrent games, namely, mean-payoff or limit-average objective, where a reward is associated to every transition, and the goal of player 1 is to maximize the long-run average of the rewards, and the objective of player 2 is strictly the opposite (i.e., the games are zero-sum). The path constraint for player 1 could be qualitative, i.e., the mean-payoff is the maximal reward, or arbitrarily close to it; or quantitative, i.e., a given threshold between the minimal and maximal reward. We consider the computation of the almost-sure (resp. positive) winning sets, where player 1 can ensure that the path constraint is satisfied with probability 1 (resp. positive probability). Almost-sure winning with qualitative constraint exactly corresponds to the question whether there exists a strategy to ensure that the payoff is the maximal reward of the game. Our main results for qualitative path constraints are as follows: (1) we establish qualitative determinacy results that show for every state either player 1 has a strategy to ensure almost-sure (resp. positive) winning against all player-2 strategies or player 2 has a spoiling strategy to falsify almost-sure (resp. positive) winning against all player-1 strategies; (2) we present optimal strategy complexity results that precisely characterize the classes of strategies required for almost-sure and positive winning for both players; and (3) we present quadratic time algorithms to compute the almost-sure and the positive winning sets, matching the best known bound of the algorithms for much simpler problems (such as reachability objectives). For quantitative constraints we show that a polynomial time solution for the almost-sure or the positive winning set would imply a solution to a long-standing open problem (of solving the value problem of mean-payoff games) that is not known to be in polynomial time

Model Checking Games for the Quantitative mu-Calculus

We investigate quantitative extensions of modal logic and the modal mu-calculus, and study the question whether the tight connection between logic and games can be lifted from the qualitative logics to their quantitative counterparts. It turns out that, if the quantitative mu-calculus is defined in an appropriate way respecting the duality properties between the logical operators, then its model checking problem can indeed be characterised by a quantitative variant of parity games. However, these quantitative games have quite different properties than their classical counterparts, in particular they are, in general, not positionally determined. The correspondence between the logic and the games goes both ways: the value of a formula on a quantitative transition system coincides with the value of the associated quantitative game, and conversely, the values of quantitative parity games are definable in the quantitative mu-calculus

Liveness of Randomised Parameterised Systems under Arbitrary Schedulers (Technical Report)

We consider the problem of verifying liveness for systems with a finite, but unbounded, number of processes, commonly known as parameterised systems. Typical examples of such systems include distributed protocols (e.g. for the dining philosopher problem). Unlike the case of verifying safety, proving liveness is still considered extremely challenging, especially in the presence of randomness in the system. In this paper we consider liveness under arbitrary (including unfair) schedulers, which is often considered a desirable property in the literature of self-stabilising systems. We introduce an automatic method of proving liveness for randomised parameterised systems under arbitrary schedulers. Viewing liveness as a two-player reachability game (between Scheduler and Process), our method is a CEGAR approach that synthesises a progress relation for Process that can be symbolically represented as a finite-state automaton. The method is incremental and exploits both Angluin-style L*-learning and SAT-solvers. Our experiments show that our algorithm is able to prove liveness automatically for well-known randomised distributed protocols, including Lehmann-Rabin Randomised Dining Philosopher Protocol and randomised self-stabilising protocols (such as the Israeli-Jalfon Protocol). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first fully-automatic method that can prove liveness for randomised protocols.Comment: Full version of CAV'16 pape