Abstract
Games on graphs with ω-regular objectives provide a model for the control and synthesis of reactive systems. Every ω-regular objective can be decomposed into a safety part and a liveness part. The liveness part ensures that something good happens “eventually.” Two main strengths of the classical, infinite-limit formulation of liveness are robustness (independence from the granularity of transitions) and simplicity (abstraction of complicated time bounds). However, the classical liveness formulation suffers from the drawback that the time until something good happens may be unbounded. A stronger formulation of liveness, so-called finitary liveness, overcomes this drawback, while still retaining robustness and simplicity. Finitary liveness requires that there exists an unknown, fixed bound b such that something good happens within b transitions. While for one-shot liveness (reachability) objectives, classical and finitary liveness coincide, for repeated liveness (Büchi) objectives, the finitary formulation is strictly stronger. In this work we study games with finitary parity and Streett (fairness) objectives. We prove the determinacy of these games, present algorithms for solving these games, and characterize the memory requirements of winning strategies. Our algorithms can be used, for example, for synthesizing controllers that do not let the response time of a system increase without bound.
This research was supported in part by the AFOSR MURI grant F49620-00-1-0327 and the NSF ITR grant CCR-0225610.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters 21, 181–185 (1985)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Finitary fairness. In: Proc. Logic in Computer Science, pp. 52–61. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1994)
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49, 672–713 (2002)
Dershowitz, N., Jayasimha, D.N., Park, S.: Bounded fairness. In: Dershowitz, N. (ed.) Verification: Theory and Practice. LNCS, vol. 2772, pp. 304–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.: The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In: Proc. Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 328–337. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1988)
Gurevich, Y., Harrington, L.: Trees, automata, and games. In: Proc. Symp. Theory of Computing, pp. 60–65. ACM, New York (1982)
Horn, F.: Streett games on finite graphs. In: Workshop on Games in Design and Verification (2005)
Jurdzinski, 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)
Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)
Martin, D.A.: Borel determinacy. Annals of Mathematics 102, 363–371 (1975)
Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Proc. Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 179–190. ACM, New York (1989)
Ramadge, P.J., Wonham, W.M.: Supervisory control of a class of discrete-event processes. SIAM J. Control and Optimization 25, 206–230 (1987)
Thomas, W.: Languages, automata, and logic. In: Handbook of Formal Languages, vol. 3, pp. 389–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A. (2006). Finitary Winning in ω-Regular Games. In: Hermanns, H., Palsberg, J. (eds) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3920. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11691372_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11691372_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-33056-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-33057-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)