Solution Complexity of Local Variants of Sabotage Game

  • Tianwei ZhangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Logic in Asia: Studia Logica Library book series (LIAA)


The study of graph games serves as a way to analyze an existing logic, as well as an inspiration for designing new logics. Given the fact that game-theoretic analysis is reviving in AI study, a new stress in the study of graph games should be the performance of standard algorithmic tasks that are conducted on graphs. In this paper, we carry out a case study on the respective graph game for three main local variants of sabotage modal logic, which have a broad range of applications in various other fields. We analyze the solution complexity for each game and show the implications these results have on their corresponding logic. This work is a first attempt to understand why similar-looking variants of a graph game and their corresponding logics can have drastically different computational complexities, with the goal to bring up a more general topic that requires further studies, namely to identify the parameters of games and logic that crucially affect complexity.



This research is supported by Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (2017THZWYX08). I wish to thank Johan van Benthem for his invaluable advice throughout the development of this project. I also wish to thank my parents and several teachers and friends, whose company has given me the courage to discover and create, and has made this journey meaningful.


  1. Areces, C., R. Fervari, and G. Hoffmann. 2012. Moving arrows and four model checking results. Logic, Language, Information and Computation.Google Scholar
  2. Areces, C., R. Fervari, and G. Hoffmann. 2014. Swap logic. Logic Journal of Igpl 22 (2): 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Areces, C., D. Figueira, D. Gorín, and S. Mera. 2009. Tableaux and model checking for memory logics. In International conference on automated reasoning with analytic tableaux and related methods.Google Scholar
  4. Areces, C. and J. van Benthem. 2019. The logic of stepwise removal.Google Scholar
  5. Aucher, G., P. Balbiani, L.F.D. Cerro and A. Herzig. 2009. Global and local graph modifiers. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 231 (none): 293–307.Google Scholar
  6. Aucher, G., J.V. Benthem and D. Grossi. 2017. Modal logics of sabotage revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation 28 (2): 269–303.Google Scholar
  7. Balcázar, J.L., J. Díaz and J. Gabarró. 2012. Structural complexity II, vol. 22. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  8. Blando, M., Areces, Franchesca Zaffora, K., and Carlos. 2018. The modal logics of the poison game.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, Y. 2018. Modal logics of definable point deletion.Google Scholar
  10. Gierasimczuk, N., L. Kurzen and F.R Velázquezquesada. 2009. Learning and teaching as a game: A sabotage approach. In International Conference on Logic.Google Scholar
  11. Grossi, D. 2010a. Argumentation in the view of modal logic. In International conference on argumentation in multi-agent systems.Google Scholar
  12. Grossi, D. 2010b. On the logic of argumentation theory. In International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems.Google Scholar
  13. Grossi, D. and S. Rey. 2019. Credulous acceptability, poison games and modal logic. arXiv:1901.09180.
  14. Grüner, S., F.G. Radmacher, and W. Thomas. 2013. Connectivity games over dynamic networks. Theoretical Computer Science 493: 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kooi, B., and B. Renne. 2011. Arrow update logic. Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (4): 536–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lassiter, D. 2017. Graded modality: Qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Li, D. 2018. Losing connection: The modal logic of definable link deletion.Google Scholar
  18. Liu, F., J. Seligman, and P. Girard. 2014. Logical dynamics of belief change in the community. Synthese 191 (11): 2403–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Löding, C. and P. Rohde. 2003. Model checking and satisfiability for sabotage modal logic. In International conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science, pp. 302–313. Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Mera, S. 2009. Modal memory logics. PhD thesis, Citeseer.Google Scholar
  21. Radmacher, F.G., and W. Thomas. 2008. A game theoretic approach to the analysis of dynamic networks 1 abstract. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 200 (2): 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohde, P. 2005. On games and logics over dynamically changing structures.Google Scholar
  23. Seligman, J., F. Liu, and P. Girard. 2013. Facebook and the epistemic logic of friendship. Computer Science.Google Scholar
  24. Stockmeyer, L.J. and A.R. Meyer. 1973. Word problems requiring exponential time (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, pp. 1–9. ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, D. 2018. Local fact change logic. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  26. van Benthem, J. 2011. Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. van Benthem, J. (2014). Logic in games. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. van Benthem, J. and D. Klein. 2018. Interfaces of logic and games.Google Scholar
  29. van Benthem, J. and F. Liu. 2018. Graph games and logic design.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tsinghua University-University of Amsterdam Joint Research Center for Logic, ILLC, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations