Abstract
Parity games are abstract infinite-round games that take an important role in formal verification. In the basic setting, these games are two-player, turn-based, and played under perfect information on directed graphs, whose nodes are labeled with priorities. The winner of a play is determined according to the parities (even or odd) of the minimal priority occurring infinitely often in that play. The problem of finding a winning strategy in parity games is known to be in UPTime \(\cap \) CoUPTime and deciding whether a polynomial time solution exists is a long-standing open question. In the last two decades, a variety of algorithms have been proposed. Many of them have been also implemented in a platform named PGSolver. This has enabled an empirical evaluation of these algorithms and a better understanding of their relative merits.
In this paper, we further contribute to this subject by implementing, for the first time, an algorithm based on alternating automata. More precisely, we consider an algorithm introduced by Kupferman and Vardi that solves a parity game by solving the emptiness problem of a corresponding alternating parity automaton. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that this algorithm outperforms other algorithms when the game has a small number of priorities relative to the size of the game. In many concrete applications, we do indeed end up with parity games where the number of priorities is relatively small. This makes the new algorithm quite useful in practice.
Work supported by NSF grants CCF-1319459 and IIS-1527668, NSF Expeditions in Computing project “ExCAPE: Expeditions in Computer Augmented Program Engineering”, BSF grant 9800096, ERC Advanced Investigator Grant 291528 (“Race”) at Oxford and GNCS 2016: Logica, Automi e Giochi per Sistemi Auto-adattivi.
G. Perelli—Part of the work has been done while visiting Rice University.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
and 
have some analogies with the fixed-point formula introduced in [References
Aminof, B., Kupferman, O., Murano, A.: Improved model checking of hierarchical systems. Inf. Comput. 210, 68–86 (2012)
Antonik, A., Charlton, N., Huth, M.: Polynomial-time under-approximation of winning regions in parity games. ENTCS 225, 115–139 (2009)
Berwanger, D.: Admissibility in infinite games. In: Thomas, W., Weil, P. (eds.) STACS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4393, pp. 188–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A., Raskin, J.-F.: Generalized mean-payoff and energy games. In: FSTTCS 2010. LIPIcs, vol. 8, pp. 505–516 (2010)
Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, M.: An \(O(n^2)\) time algorithm for alternating Büchi games. In: SODA 2012, pp. 1386–1399 (2012)
Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Jurdzinski, M.: Mean-payoff parity games. In: LICS 2005, pp. 178–187 (2005)
Chatterjee, K., Jurdzinski, M., Henzinger, T.A.: Quantitative stochastic parity games. In: SODA 2004, pp. 121–130 (2004)
Clarke, E.M., Emerson, E.A.: Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In: Kozen, D. (ed.) LP 1981. LNCS, vol. 131, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.A.: Model Checking (2002)
de Alfaro, L., Faella, M.: An accelerated algorithm for 3-color parity games with an application to timed games. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 108–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Emerson, E.A., Jutla, C.: Tree automata, \(\mu \)-calculus and determinacy. In: FOCS 1991, pp. 368–377 (1991)
Friedmann, O., Lange, M.: The PGSolver collection of parity game solvers. University of Munich (2009)
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)
Heljanko, K., Keinänen, M., Lange, M., Niemelä, I.: Solving parity games by a reduction to SAT. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 78(2), 430–440 (2012)
Jurdzinski, M.: Deciding the winner in parity games is in UP \(\cap \) co-Up. Inf. Process. Lett. 68(3), 119–124 (1998)
Jurdziński, M.: Small progress measures for solving parity games. In: Reichel, H., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1770, p. 290. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Jurdzinski, M., Paterson, M., Zwick, U.: A deterministic subexponential algorithm for solving parity games. SIAM J. Comput. 38(4), 1519–1532 (2008)
Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional \(\mu \)-calculus. TCS 27(3), 333–354 (1983)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M., Wolper, P.: Module checking. Inf. Comput. 164(2), 322–344 (2001)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Weak alternating automata and tree automata emptiness. In: STOC, pp. 224–233 (1998)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. J. ACM 47(2), 312–360 (2000)
Mogavero, F., Murano, A., Sorrentino, L.: On promptness in parity games. In: McMillan, K., Middeldorp, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-19 2013. LNCS, vol. 8312, pp. 601–618. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Muller, D.E., Saoudi, A., Schupp, P.E.: Weak alternating automata give a simple explanation of why most temporal and dynamic logics are decidable in exponential time. In: LICS 1988, pp. 422–427 (1988)
Queille, J.P., Sifakis, J.: Specification and verification of concurrent systems in CESAR. In: Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Montanari, U. (eds.) Programming 1982. LNCS, vol. 137, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)
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)
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)
Thomas, W.: Facets of synthesis: revisiting church’s problem. In: de Alfaro, L. (ed.) FOSSACS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5504, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Vöge, J., Jurdziński, M.: A discrete strategy improvement algorithm for solving parity games. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 202–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Walukiewicz, I.: Pushdown processes: games and model checking. In: Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CAV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1102, pp. 62–74. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
Wilke, T.: Alternating tree automata, parity games, and modal \(\mu \)-calculus. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 8(2), 359 (2001)
Zielonka, W.: Infinite games on finitely coloured graphs with applications to automata on infinite trees. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200(1–2), 135–183 (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Di Stasio, A., Murano, A., Perelli, G., Vardi, M.Y. (2016). Solving Parity Games Using an Automata-Based Algorithm. In: Han, YS., Salomaa, K. (eds) Implementation and Application of Automata. CIAA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9705. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40946-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40946-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40945-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40946-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)