An Exponential Lower Bound for the Latest Deterministic Strategy Iteration Algorithms

This paper presents a new exponential lower bound for the two most popular deterministic variants of the strategy improvement algorithms for solving parity, mean payoff, discounted payoff and simple stochastic games. The first variant improves every node in each step maximizing the current valuation locally, whereas the second variant computes the globally optimal improvement in each step. We outline families of games on which both variants require exponentially many strategy iterations

Two-Player Perfect-Information Shift-Invariant Submixing Stochastic Games Are Half-Positional

We consider zero-sum stochastic games with perfect information and finitely many states and actions. The payoff is computed by a payoff function which associates to each infinite sequence of states and actions a real number. We prove that if the the payoff function is both shift-invariant and submixing, then the game is half-positional, i.e. the first player has an optimal strategy which is both deterministic and stationary. This result relies on the existence of $\epsilon$-subgame-perfect equilibria in shift-invariant games, a second contribution of the paper

The Complexity of All-switches Strategy Improvement

Strategy improvement is a widely-used and well-studied class of algorithms for solving graph-based infinite games. These algorithms are parameterized by a switching rule, and one of the most natural rules is "all switches" which switches as many edges as possible in each iteration. Continuing a recent line of work, we study all-switches strategy improvement from the perspective of computational complexity. We consider two natural decision problems, both of which have as input a game $G$, a starting strategy $s$, and an edge $e$. The problems are: 1.) The edge switch problem, namely, is the edge $e$ ever switched by all-switches strategy improvement when it is started from $s$ on game $G$? 2.) The optimal strategy problem, namely, is the edge $e$ used in the final strategy that is found by strategy improvement when it is started from $s$ on game $G$? We show $\mathtt{PSPACE}$-completeness of the edge switch problem and optimal strategy problem for the following settings: Parity games with the discrete strategy improvement algorithm of V\"oge and Jurdzi\'nski; mean-payoff games with the gain-bias algorithm [14,37]; and discounted-payoff games and simple stochastic games with their standard strategy improvement algorithms. We also show $\mathtt{PSPACE}$-completeness of an analogous problem to edge switch for the bottom-antipodal algorithm for finding the sink of an Acyclic Unique Sink Orientation on a cube

Expectations or Guarantees? I Want It All! A crossroad between games and MDPs

When reasoning about the strategic capabilities of an agent, it is important to consider the nature of its adversaries. In the particular context of controller synthesis for quantitative specifications, the usual problem is to devise a strategy for a reactive system which yields some desired performance, taking into account the possible impact of the environment of the system. There are at least two ways to look at this environment. In the classical analysis of two-player quantitative games, the environment is purely antagonistic and the problem is to provide strict performance guarantees. In Markov decision processes, the environment is seen as purely stochastic: the aim is then to optimize the expected payoff, with no guarantee on individual outcomes. In this expository work, we report on recent results introducing the beyond worst-case synthesis problem, which is to construct strategies that guarantee some quantitative requirement in the worst-case while providing an higher expected value against a particular stochastic model of the environment given as input. This problem is relevant to produce system controllers that provide nice expected performance in the everyday situation while ensuring a strict (but relaxed) performance threshold even in the event of very bad (while unlikely) circumstances. It has been studied for both the mean-payoff and the shortest path quantitative measures.Comment: In Proceedings SR 2014, arXiv:1404.041

Infinite-Duration Bidding Games

Two-player games on graphs are widely studied in formal methods as they model the interaction between a system and its environment. The game is played by moving a token throughout a graph to produce an infinite path. There are several common modes to determine how the players move the token through the graph; e.g., in turn-based games the players alternate turns in moving the token. We study the {\em bidding} mode of moving the token, which, to the best of our knowledge, has never been studied in infinite-duration games. The following bidding rule was previously defined and called Richman bidding. Both players have separate {\em budgets}, which sum up to $1$. In each turn, a bidding takes place: Both players submit bids simultaneously, where a bid is legal if it does not exceed the available budget, and the higher bidder pays his bid to the other player and moves the token. The central question studied in bidding games is a necessary and sufficient initial budget for winning the game: a {\em threshold} budget in a vertex is a value $t \in [0,1]$ such that if Player $1$'s budget exceeds $t$, he can win the game, and if Player $2$'s budget exceeds $1-t$, he can win the game. Threshold budgets were previously shown to exist in every vertex of a reachability game, which have an interesting connection with {\em random-turn} games -- a sub-class of simple stochastic games in which the player who moves is chosen randomly. We show the existence of threshold budgets for a qualitative class of infinite-duration games, namely parity games, and a quantitative class, namely mean-payoff games. The key component of the proof is a quantitative solution to strongly-connected mean-payoff bidding games in which we extend the connection with random-turn games to these games, and construct explicit optimal strategies for both players.Comment: A short version appeared in CONCUR 2017. The paper is accepted to JAC

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

Minimizing Expected Cost Under Hard Boolean Constraints, with Applications to Quantitative Synthesis

In Boolean synthesis, we are given an LTL specification, and the goal is to construct a transducer that realizes it against an adversarial environment. Often, a specification contains both Boolean requirements that should be satisfied against an adversarial environment, and multi-valued components that refer to the quality of the satisfaction and whose expected cost we would like to minimize with respect to a probabilistic environment. In this work we study, for the first time, mean-payoff games in which the system aims at minimizing the expected cost against a probabilistic environment, while surely satisfying an $\omega$-regular condition against an adversarial environment. We consider the case the $\omega$-regular condition is given as a parity objective or by an LTL formula. We show that in general, optimal strategies need not exist, and moreover, the limit value cannot be approximated by finite-memory strategies. We thus focus on computing the limit-value, and give tight complexity bounds for synthesizing $\epsilon$-optimal strategies for both finite-memory and infinite-memory strategies. We show that our game naturally arises in various contexts of synthesis with Boolean and multi-valued objectives. Beyond direct applications, in synthesis with costs and rewards to certain behaviors, it allows us to compute the minimal sensing cost of $\omega$-regular specifications -- a measure of quality in which we look for a transducer that minimizes the expected number of signals that are read from the input