2,937 research outputs found
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
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 the most fundamental objective for concurrent games, namely, mean-payoff or limit-average 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 (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 of 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 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 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 turn-based deterministic mean-payoff games) that is not known to be solvable in polynomial time
The Value 1 Problem Under Finite-memory Strategies for Concurrent Mean-payoff Games
We consider concurrent mean-payoff games, a very well-studied class of
two-player (player 1 vs player 2) zero-sum games on finite-state graphs where
every transition is assigned a reward between 0 and 1, and the payoff function
is the long-run average of the rewards. The value is the maximal expected
payoff that player 1 can guarantee against all strategies of player 2. We
consider the computation of the set of states with value 1 under finite-memory
strategies for player 1, and our main results for the problem are as follows:
(1) we present a polynomial-time algorithm; (2) we show that whenever there is
a finite-memory strategy, there is a stationary strategy that does not need
memory at all; and (3) we present an optimal bound (which is double
exponential) on the patience of stationary strategies (where patience of a
distribution is the inverse of the smallest positive probability and represents
a complexity measure of a stationary strategy)
Multiplayer Cost Games with Simple Nash Equilibria
Multiplayer games with selfish agents naturally occur in the design of
distributed and embedded systems. As the goals of selfish agents are usually
neither equivalent nor antagonistic to each other, such games are non zero-sum
games. We study such games and show that a large class of these games,
including games where the individual objectives are mean- or discounted-payoff,
or quantitative reachability, and show that they do not only have a solution,
but a simple solution. We establish the existence of Nash equilibria that are
composed of k memoryless strategies for each agent in a setting with k agents,
one main and k-1 minor strategies. The main strategy describes what happens
when all agents comply, whereas the minor strategies ensure that all other
agents immediately start to co-operate against the agent who first deviates
from the plan. This simplicity is important, as rational agents are an
idealisation. Realistically, agents have to decide on their moves with very
limited resources, and complicated strategies that require exponential--or even
non-elementary--implementations cannot realistically be implemented. The
existence of simple strategies that we prove in this paper therefore holds a
promise of implementability.Comment: 23 page
Rational Verification in Iterated Electric Boolean Games
Electric boolean games are compact representations of games where the players
have qualitative objectives described by LTL formulae and have limited
resources. We study the complexity of several decision problems related to the
analysis of rationality in electric boolean games with LTL objectives. In
particular, we report that the problem of deciding whether a profile is a Nash
equilibrium in an iterated electric boolean game is no harder than in iterated
boolean games without resource bounds. We show that it is a PSPACE-complete
problem. As a corollary, we obtain that both rational elimination and rational
construction of Nash equilibria by a supervising authority are PSPACE-complete
problems.Comment: In Proceedings SR 2016, arXiv:1607.0269
The Complexity of Nash Equilibria in Limit-Average Games
We study the computational complexity of Nash equilibria in concurrent games
with limit-average objectives. In particular, we prove that the existence of a
Nash equilibrium in randomised strategies is undecidable, while the existence
of a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies is decidable, even if we put a
constraint on the payoff of the equilibrium. Our undecidability result holds
even for a restricted class of concurrent games, where nonzero rewards occur
only on terminal states. Moreover, we show that the constrained existence
problem is undecidable not only for concurrent games but for turn-based games
with the same restriction on rewards. Finally, we prove that the constrained
existence problem for Nash equilibria in (pure or randomised) stationary
strategies is decidable and analyse its complexity.Comment: 34 page
Pure Nash Equilibria in Concurrent Deterministic Games
We study pure-strategy Nash equilibria in multi-player concurrent
deterministic games, for a variety of preference relations. We provide a novel
construction, called the suspect game, which transforms a multi-player
concurrent game into a two-player turn-based game which turns Nash equilibria
into winning strategies (for some objective that depends on the preference
relations of the players in the original game). We use that transformation to
design algorithms for computing Nash equilibria in finite games, which in most
cases have optimal worst-case complexity, for large classes of preference
relations. This includes the purely qualitative framework, where each player
has a single omega-regular objective that she wants to satisfy, but also the
larger class of semi-quantitative objectives, where each player has several
omega-regular objectives equipped with a preorder (for instance, a player may
want to satisfy all her objectives, or to maximise the number of objectives
that she achieves.)Comment: 72 page
- …