Robust Exponential Worst Cases for Divide-et-Impera Algorithms for Parity Games

The McNaughton-Zielonka divide et impera algorithm is the simplest and most flexible approach available in the literature for determining the winner in a parity game. Despite its theoretical worst-case complexity and the negative reputation as a poorly effective algorithm in practice, it has been shown to rank among the best techniques for the solution of such games. Also, it proved to be resistant to a lower bound attack, even more than the strategy improvements approaches, and only recently a family of games on which the algorithm requires exponential time has been provided by Friedmann. An easy analysis of this family shows that a simple memoization technique can help the algorithm solve the family in polynomial time. The same result can also be achieved by exploiting an approach based on the dominion-decomposition techniques proposed in the literature. These observations raise the question whether a suitable combination of dynamic programming and game-decomposition techniques can improve on the exponential worst case of the original algorithm. In this paper we answer this question negatively, by providing a robustly exponential worst case, showing that no intertwining of the above mentioned techniques can help mitigating the exponential nature of the divide et impera approaches.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2017, arXiv:1709.0176

A Delayed Promotion Policy for Parity Games

Parity games are two-player infinite-duration games on graphs that play a crucial role in various fields of theoretical computer science. Finding efficient algorithms to solve these games in practice is widely acknowledged as a core problem in formal verification, as it leads to efficient solutions of the model-checking and satisfiability problems of expressive temporal logics, e.g., the modal muCalculus. Their solution can be reduced to the problem of identifying sets of positions of the game, called dominions, in each of which a player can force a win by remaining in the set forever. Recently, a novel technique to compute dominions, called priority promotion, has been proposed, which is based on the notions of quasi dominion, a relaxed form of dominion, and dominion space. The underlying framework is general enough to accommodate different instantiations of the solution procedure, whose correctness is ensured by the nature of the space itself. In this paper we propose a new such instantiation, called delayed promotion, that tries to reduce the possible exponential behaviours exhibited by the original method in the worst case. The resulting procedure not only often outperforms the original priority promotion approach, but so far no exponential worst case is known.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2016, arXiv:1609.0364

Taming Strategy Logic: Non-Recurrent Fragments

Strategy Logic (SL for short) is one of the prominent languages for reasoning about the strategic abilities of agents in a multi-agent setting. This logic extends LTL with first-order quantifiers over the agent strategies and encompasses other formalisms, such as ATL* and CTL*. The model-checking problem for SL and several of its fragments have been extensively studied. On the other hand, the picture is much less clear on the satisfiability front, where the problem is undecidable for the full logic. In this work, we study two fragments of One-Goal SL, where the nesting of sentences within temporal operators is constrained. We show that the satisfiability problem for these logics, and for the corresponding fragments of ATL* and CTL*, is ExpSpace and PSpace-complete, respectively

Solving Mean-Payoff Games via Quasi Dominions

We propose a novel algorithm for the solution of mean-payoff games that merges together two seemingly unrelated concepts introduced in the context of parity games, small progress measures and quasi dominions. We show that the integration of the two notions can be highly beneficial and significantly speeds up convergence to the problem solution. Experiments show that the resulting algorithm performs orders of magnitude better than the asymptotically-best solution algorithm currently known, without sacrificing on the worst-case complexity

Satisfiability in Strategy Logic can be Easier than Model Checking

In the design of complex systems, model-checking and satisfiability arise as two prominent decision problems. While model-checking requires the designed system to be provided in advance, satisfiability allows to check if such a system even exists. With very few exceptions, the second problem turns out to be harder than the first one from a complexity-theoretic standpoint. In this paper, we investigate the connection between the two problems for a non-trivial fragment of Strategy Logic (SL, for short). SL extends LTL with first-order quantifications over strategies, thus allowing to explicitly reason about the strategic abilities of agents in a multi-agent system. Satisfiability for the full logic is known to be highly undecidable, while model-checking is non-elementary.The SL fragment we consider is obtained by preventing strategic quantifications within the scope of temporal operators. The resulting logic is quite powerful, still allowing to express important game-theoretic properties of multi-agent systems, such as existence of Nash and immune equilibria, as well as to formalize the rational synthesis problem. We show that satisfiability for such a fragment is PSPACE-COMPLETE, while its model-checking complexity is 2EXPTIME-HARD. The result is obtained by means of an elegant encoding of the problem into the satisfiability of conjunctive-binding first-order logic, a recently discovered decidable fragment of first-order logic

Alternating (In)Dependence-Friendly Logic

Hintikka and Sandu originally proposed Independence Friendly Logic ([Formula presented]) as a first-order logic of imperfect information to describe game-theoretic phenomena underlying the semantics of natural language. The logic allows for expressing independence constraints among quantified variables, in a similar vein to Henkin quantifiers, and has a nice game-theoretic semantics in terms of imperfect information games. However, the [Formula presented] semantics exhibits some limitations, at least from a purely logical perspective. It treats the players asymmetrically, considering only one of the two players as having imperfect information when evaluating truth, resp., falsity, of a sentence. In addition, truth and falsity of sentences coincide with the existence of a uniform winning strategy for one of the two players in the semantic imperfect information game. As a consequence, [Formula presented] does admit undetermined sentences, which are neither true nor false, thus failing the law of excluded middle. These idiosyncrasies limit its expressive power to the existential fragment of Second Order Logic ([Formula presented]). In this paper, we investigate an extension of [Formula presented], called Alternating Dependence/Independence Friendly Logic ([Formula presented]), tailored to overcome these limitations. To this end, we introduce a novel compositional semantics, generalising the one based on trumps proposed by Hodges for [Formula presented]. The new semantics (i) allows for meaningfully restricting both players at the same time, (ii) enjoys the property of game-theoretic determinacy, (iii) recovers the law of excluded middle for sentences, and (iv) grants [Formula presented] the full descriptive power of [Formula presented]. We also provide an equivalent Herbrand-Skolem semantics and a game-theoretic semantics for the prenex fragment of [Formula presented], the latter being defined in terms of a determined infinite-duration game that precisely captures the other two semantics on finite structures

Good-for-Game QPTL: An Alternating Hodges Semantics

An extension of QPTL is considered where functional dependencies among the quantified variables can be restricted in such a way that their current values are independent of the future values of the other variables. This restriction is tightly connected to the notion of behavioral strategies in game-theory and allows the resulting logic to naturally express game-theoretic concepts. The fragment where only restricted quantifications are considered, called behavioral quantifications, can be decided, for both model checking and satisfiability, in 2ExpTime and is expressively equivalent to QPTL, though significantly less succinct