Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A survey of partial-observation stochastic parity games

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider two-player zero-sum stochastic games on graphs with ω-regular winning conditions specified as parity objectives. These games have applications in the design and control of reactive systems. We survey the complexity results for the problem of deciding the winner in such games, and in classes of interest obtained as special cases, based on the information and the power of randomization available to the players, on the class of objectives and on the winning mode.

On the basis of information, these games can be classified as follows: (a) partial-observation (both players have partial view of the game); (b) one-sided partial-observation (one player has partial-observation and the other player has complete-observation); and (c) complete-observation (both players have complete view of the game). The one-sided partial-observation games have two important subclasses: the one-player games, known as partial-observation Markov decision processes (POMDPs), and the blind one-player games, known as probabilistic automata.

On the basis of randomization, (a) the players may not be allowed to use randomization (pure strategies), or (b) they may choose a probability distribution over actions but the actual random choice is external and not visible to the player (actions invisible), or (c) they may use full randomization.

Finally, various classes of games are obtained by restricting the parity objective to a reachability, safety, Büchi, or coBüchi condition. We also consider several winning modes, such as sure-winning (i.e., all outcomes of a strategy have to satisfy the winning condition), almost-sure winning (i.e., winning with probability 1), limit-sure winning (i.e., winning with probability arbitrarily close to 1), and value-threshold winning (i.e., winning with probability at least ν, where ν is a given rational).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alur R, Henzinger TA, Kupferman O (2002) Alternating-time temporal logic. J ACM 49:672–713

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baier C, Bertrand N, Größer M (2008) On decision problems for probabilistic Büchi automata. In: FoSSaCS. LNCS, vol 4962. Springer, Berlin, pp 287–301

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baier C, Größer M (2005) Recognizing omega-regular languages with probabilistic automata. In: LICS, pp 137–146

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bertrand N, Genest B, Gimbert H (2009) Qualitative determinacy and decidability of stochastic games with signals. In: LICS. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 319–328

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berwanger D, Doyen L (2008) On the power of imperfect information. In: FSTTCS, Dagstuhl seminar proceedings 08004. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Billingsley P (ed) (1995) Probability and measure. Wiley-Interscience, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Büchi JR, Landweber LH (1969) Solving sequential conditions by finite-state strategies. Trans Am Math Soc 138:295–311

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Cerný P, Chatterjee K, Henzinger TA, Radhakrishna A, Singh R (2011) Quantitative synthesis for concurrent programs. In: Proc of CAV. LNCS, vol 6806. Springer, Berlin, pp 243–259

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chadha R, Sistla AP, Viswanathan M (2009) On the expressiveness and complexity of randomization in finite state monitors. J ACM 56(5)

  10. Chadha R, Sistla AP, Viswanathan M (2009) Power of randomization in automata on infinite strings. In: Proc of CONCUR. LNCS, vol 5710. Springer, Berlin, pp 229–243

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chadha R, Sistla AP, Viswanathan M (2011) Probabilistic Büchi automata with non-extremal acceptance thresholds. In: Proc of VMCAI, pp 103–117

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chatterjee K (2007) Stochastic ω-regular games. PhD thesis, UC Berkeley

  13. Chatterjee K, Doyen L (2010) The complexity of partial-observation parity games. In: Proc of LPAR (Yogyakarta), pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chatterjee K, Doyen L (2012) Partial-observation stochastic games: how to win when belief fails. In: LICS’12, IEEE Press, New York. CoRR 1107.2141, July 2011

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chatterjee K, Doyen L, Gimbert H, Henzinger TA (2010) Randomness for free. In: MFCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chatterjee K, Doyen L, Henzinger TA (2010) Qualitative analysis of partially-observable Markov decision processes. In: MFCS, pp 258–269

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chatterjee K, Doyen L, Henzinger TA, Raskin J-F (2007) Algorithms for omega-regular games of incomplete information. Log Methods Comput Sci 3(3:4)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chatterjee K, Jurdziński M, Henzinger TA (2003) Simple stochastic parity games. In: CSL’03. LNCS, vol 2803. Springer, Berlin, pp 100–113

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chatterjee K, Jurdziński M, Henzinger TA (2004) Quantitative stochastic parity games. In: SODA’04. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 121–130

    Google Scholar 

  20. Condon A (1992) The complexity of stochastic games. Inf Comput 96(2):203–224

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Cristau J, David C, Horn F (2010) How do we remember the past in randomised strategies? In: GANDALF, pp 30–39

    Google Scholar 

  22. de Alfaro L, Henzinger TA (2001) Interface theories for component-based design. In: EMSOFT. LNCS, vol 2211. Springer, Berlin, pp 148–165

    Google Scholar 

  23. Emerson EA, Jutla C (1991) Tree automata, mu-calculus and determinacy. In: FOCS. IEEE Press, New York, pp 368–377

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gimbert H, Oualhadj Y (2010) Probabilistic automata on finite words: decidable and undecidable problems. In: Proc of ICALP. LNCS, vol 6199. Springer, Berlin, pp 527–538

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gripon V, Serre O (2009) Qualitative concurrent stochastic games with imperfect information. In: ICALP(2). LNCS, vol 5556. Springer, Berlin, pp 200–211

    Google Scholar 

  26. Henzinger TA, Kupferman O, Rajamani S (2002) Fair simulation. Inf Comput 173:64–81

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Immerman N (1981) Number of quantifiers is better than number of tape cells. J Comput Syst Sci 22:384–406

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Kechris A (1995) Classical descriptive set theory. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Kress-Gazit H, Fainekos GE, Pappas GJ (2009) Temporal-logic-based reactive mission and motion planning. IEEE Trans Robot 25(6):1370–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Madani O, Hanks S, Condon A (2003) On the undecidability of probabilistic planning and related stochastic optimization problems. Artif Intell 147(1–2):5–34

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Martin DA (1998) The determinacy of Blackwell games. J Symb Log 63(4):1565–1581

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. McNaughton R (1993) Infinite games played on finite graphs. Ann Pure Appl Log 65:149–184

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Paz A (1971) Introduction to probabilistic automata. Computer science and applied mathematics. Academic Press, San Diego

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rabin MO (1963) Probabilistic automata. Inf Control 6:230–245

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Ramadge PJ, Wonham WM (1987) Supervisory control of a class of discrete-event processes. SIAM J Control Optim 25(1):206–230

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Reif JH (1979) Universal games of incomplete information. In: STOC. ACM, New York, pp 288–308

    Google Scholar 

  38. Thomas W (1997) Languages, automata, and logic. In: Beyond words. Handbook of formal languages, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, pp 389–455. Chap 7

    Google Scholar 

  39. Vardi MY (1985) Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite-state systems. In: FOCS. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 327–338

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Grant No. P 23499-N23 on Modern Graph Algorithmic Techniques in Formal Verification, FWF NFN Grant No. S11407-N23 (RiSE), ERC Start grant (279307: Graph Games), Microsoft faculty fellows award, ERC Advanced grant QUAREM, and FWF Grant No. S11403-N23 (RiSE).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IST Austria (Institute of Science and Technology Austria), Klosterneuburg, Austria

    Krishnendu Chatterjee & Thomas A. Henzinger

  2. LSV, ENS Cachan & CNRS, Cachan, France

    Laurent Doyen

Authors
  1. Krishnendu Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurent Doyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas A. Henzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krishnendu Chatterjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L. & Henzinger, T.A. A survey of partial-observation stochastic parity games. Form Methods Syst Des 43, 268–284 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-012-0164-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-012-0164-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation