Skip to main content

Games with Secure Equilibria,

  • Conference paper
Formal Methods for Components and Objects (FMCO 2004)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 3657))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 474 Accesses

Abstract

In 2-player non-zero-sum games, Nash equilibria capture the options for rational behavior if each player attempts to maximize her payoff. In contrast to classical game theory, we consider lexicographic objectives: first, each player tries to maximize her own payoff, and then, the player tries to minimize the opponent’s payoff. Such objectives arise naturally in the verification of systems with multiple components. There, instead of proving that each component satisfies its specification no matter how the other components behave, it often suffices to prove that each component satisfies its specification provided that the other components satisfy their specifications. We say that a Nash equilibrium is secure if it is an equilibrium with respect to the lexicographic objectives of both players. We prove that in graph games with Borel winning conditions, which include the games that arise in verification, there may be several Nash equilibria, but there is always a unique maximal payoff profile of a secure equilibrium. We show how this equilibrium can be computed in the case of ω-regular winning conditions, and we characterize the memory requirements of strategies that achieve the equilibrium.

This research was supported in part by the ONR grant N00014-02-1-0671, the AFOSR MURI grant F49620-00-1-0327, and the NSF grant CCR-0225610.

This is an extended version of the paper “Games with Secure Equilibria” that appeared in the proceedings of Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2004.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: Conjoining specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 17, 507–534 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Reactive modules. Formal Methods in System Design 15, 7–48 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 49, 672–713 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Dziembowski, S., Jurdziński, M., Walukiewicz, I.: How much memory is needed to win infinite games? Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pp. 99–110. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.: The complexity of tree automata and logics of programs. In: Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 328–337. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.: Tree automata, μ-calculus, and determinacy. In: Foundations of Computer Science(FOCS), pp. 368–377. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nash Jr., J.F.: Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36, 48–49 (1950)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Kechris, A.: Classical Descriptive Set Theory. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kreps, D.M.: A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Specification. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Martin, D.A.: Borel determinacy. Annals of Mathematics 102, 363–371 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin, D.A.: The determinacy of Blackwell games. Journal of Symbolic Logic 63, 1565–1581 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Namjoshi, K., Amla, N., Emerson, E.A., Trefler, R.: Abstract patterns of compositional reasoning. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 423–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Owen, G.: Game Theory. Academic Press, London (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pnueli, A., Rosner, R.: On the synthesis of a reactive module. In: Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 179–190. ACM Press, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas, W.: On the synthesis of strategies in infinite games. In: Mayr, E.W., Puech, C. (eds.) STACS 1995. LNCS, vol. 900, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas, W.: Languages, automata, and logic. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, vol. 3, pp. 389–455. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jurdziński, M. (2005). Games with Secure Equilibria, . In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, WP. (eds) Formal Methods for Components and Objects. FMCO 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3657. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11561163_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11561163_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29131-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31939-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics