Skip to main content

Improving Priority Promotion for Parity Games

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10028))

Abstract

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 \(\mu \) Calculus. 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 region recovery, 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All the experiments were carried out on a 64-bit 3.1 GHz Intel®quad-core machine, with i5-2400 processor and 8 GB of RAM, running Ubuntu 12.04 with Linux kernel version 3.2.0. PGSolver was compiled with OCaml version 2.12.1.

References

  1. Apt, K., Grädel, E.: Lectures in Game Theory for Computer Scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Benerecetti, M., Dell’Erba, D., Mogavero, F.: Solving parity games via priority promotion. In: Chaudhuri, S., Farzan, A. (eds.) CAV 2016. LNCS, vol. 9780, pp. 270–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41540-6_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L., Henzinger, T., Raskin, J.-F.: Generalized mean-payoff and energy games. In: FSTTCS 2010. LIPIcs, vol. 8, pp. 505–516. Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Condon, A.: The complexity of stochastic games. IC 96(2), 203–224 (1992)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Ehrenfeucht, A., Mycielski, J.: Positional strategies for mean payoff games. IJGT 8(2), 109–113 (1979)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Emerson, E., Jutla, C.: The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs (extended abstract). In: FOCS 1988, pp. 328–337. IEEE Computer Society (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Emerson, E., Jutla, C.: Tree automata, muCalculus, and determinacy. In: FOCS 1991, pp. 368–377. IEEE Computer Society (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Emerson, E., Jutla, C., Sistla, A.: On model-checking for fragments of \(\mu \)-calculus. In: Courcoubetis, C. (ed.) CAV ’93. LNCS, vol. 697, pp. 385–396. Springer, Heidelberg (1993). doi:10.1007/3-540-56922-7_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedmann, O., Lange, M.: Solving parity games in practice. In: Liu, Z., Ravn, A.P. (eds.) ATVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5799, pp. 182–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Grädel, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T.: Automata Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research. LNCS, vol. 2500. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Gurevich, V., Karzanov, A., Khachivan, L.: Cyclic games and an algorithm to find minimax cycle means in directed graphs. USSRCMMP 28(5), 85–91 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jurdziński, M.: Deciding the winner in parity games is in UP \(\cap \) co-Up. IPL 68(3), 119–124 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Jurdziński, M.: Small progress measures for solving parity games. In: Reichel, H., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1770, pp. 290–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi:10.1007/3-540-46541-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Jurdziński, M., Paterson, M., Zwick, U.: A deterministic subexponential algorithm for solving parity games. SJM 38(4), 1519–1532 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.: Weak alternating automata and tree automata emptiness. In: STOC 1998, pp. 224–233. Association for Computing Machinery (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kupferman, O., Vardi, M., Wolper, P.: An automata theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. JACM 47(2), 312–360 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Mostowski, A.W.: Regular expressions for infinite trees and a standard form of automata. In: Skowron, A. (ed.) SCT 1984. LNCS, vol. 208, pp. 157–168. Springer, Heidelberg (1985). doi:10.1007/3-540-16066-3_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Mostowski, A.: Games with forbidden positions. University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland, Technical report (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schewe, S.: Solving parity games in big steps. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds.) FSTTCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4855, pp. 449–460. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77050-3_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Schewe, S.: An optimal strategy improvement algorithm for solving parity and payoff games. In: Kaminski, M., Martini, S. (eds.) CSL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5213, pp. 369–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87531-4_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Schewe, S., Trivedi, A., Varghese, T.: Symmetric strategy improvement. In: Halldórsson, M.M., Iwama, K., Kobayashi, N., Speckmann, B. (eds.) ICALP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9135, pp. 388–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-47666-6_31

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vöge, J., Jurdziński, M.: A discrete strategy improvement algorithm for solving parity games. In: Allen Emerson, E., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1855, pp. 202–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi:10.1007/10722167_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Zielonka, W.: Infinite games on finitely coloured graphs with applications to automata on infinite trees. TCS 200(1–2), 135–183 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Zwick, U., Paterson, M.: The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. TCS 158(1–2), 343–359 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Mogavero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Benerecetti, M., Dell’Erba, D., Mogavero, F. (2016). Improving Priority Promotion for Parity Games. In: Bloem, R., Arbel, E. (eds) Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing. HVC 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10028. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49052-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49052-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49051-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49052-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics