Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Stochastic Window Mean-Payoff Games

Published 23 Apr 2023 in cs.GT | (2304.11563v7)

Abstract: Stochastic two-player games model systems with an environment that is both adversarial and stochastic. The adversarial part of the environment is modeled by a player (Player 2) who tries to prevent the system (Player 1) from achieving its objective. We consider finitary versions of the traditional mean-payoff objective, replacing the long-run average of the payoffs by payoff average computed over a finite sliding window. Two variants have been considered: in one variant, the maximum window length is fixed and given, while in the other, it is not fixed but is required to be bounded. For both variants, we present complexity bounds and algorithmic solutions for computing strategies for Player 1 to ensure that the objective is satisfied with positive probability, with probability 1, or with probability at least $p$, regardless of the strategy of Player 2. The solution crucially relies on a reduction to the special case of non-stochastic two-player games. We give a general characterization of prefix-independent objectives for which this reduction holds. The memory requirement for both players in stochastic games is also the same as in non-stochastic games by our reduction. Moreover, for non-stochastic games, we improve upon the upper bound for the memory requirement of Player 1 and upon the lower bound for the memory requirement of Player 2.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. R. Alur and T. A. Henzinger. Finitary fairness. In LICS, pages 52–61. IEEE Computer Society, 1994.
  2. Life is Random, Time is Not: Markov Decision Processes with Window Objectives. Logical Methods in Computer Science, Volume 16, Issue 4, Dec 2020.
  3. Expected window mean-payoff. In FSTTCS, volume 150 of LIPIcs, pages 32:1–32:15, 2019.
  4. Window parity games: an alternative approach toward parity games with time bounds. In GandALF, volume 226 of EPTCS, pages 135–148, 2016.
  5. On the complexity of heterogeneous multidimensional games. In CONCUR, volume 59 of LIPIcs, pages 11:1–11:15. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2016.
  6. P. Billingsley. Probability and Measure. John Wiley and Sons, second edition, 1986.
  7. C. Baier and J-P. Katoen. Principles of model checking. MIT Press, 2008.
  8. Looking at mean-payoff and total-payoff through windows. Information and Computation, 242:25–52, 2015.
  9. K. Chatterjee and T. A. Henzinger. Finitary winning in ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω-regular games. In TACAS, LNCS 3920, pages 257–271. Springer, 2006.
  10. K. Chatterjee and T. A. Henzinger. Value iteration. In 25 Years of Model Checking - History, Achievements, Perspectives, LNCS 5000, pages 107–138. Springer, 2008.
  11. K. Chatterjee and T. A. Henzinger. A survey of stochastic ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω-regular games. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 78(2):394–413, 2012.
  12. K. Chatterjee. Concurrent games with tail objectives. Theoretical Computer Science, 388(1):181–198, 2007.
  13. Finitary winning in omega-regular games. ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 11(1):1:1–1:27, 2009.
  14. Stochastic games with finitary objectives. In MFCS, pages 34–54. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  15. A. Condon. The complexity of stochastic games. Information and Computation, 96(2):203–224, 1992.
  16. R. Durrett. Probability: Theory and Examples. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  17. A. Ehrenfeucht and J. Mycielski. Positional strategies for mean payoff games. Int. Journal of Game Theory, 8(2):109–113, 1979.
  18. J. Filar and K. Vrieze. Competitive Markov Decision Processes. Springer, 1997.
  19. Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research, LNCS 2500. Springer, 2002.
  20. Q. Hautem. The Complexity of Combining Objectives in Two-Player Games. PhD thesis, Université de Mons, 2018.
  21. F. Horn. Faster algorithms for finitary games. In TACAS, volume 4424 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 472–484. Springer, 2007.
  22. Optimal strategy synthesis for request-response games. RAIRO Theor. Informatics Appl., 49(3):179–203, 2015.
  23. M. Jurdzinski. Deciding the winner in parity games is in UP ∩\cap∩ co-UP. Inf. Process. Lett., 68(3):119–124, 1998.
  24. From liveness to promptness. Formal Methods Syst. Des., 34(2):83–103, 2009.
  25. D. A. Martin. The determinacy of blackwell games. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 63(4):1565–1581, 1998. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2586667.
  26. W. Rudin. Real and Complex Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1987.
  27. U. Schöning. A low and a high hierarchy within NP. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 27(1):14–28, 1983.
  28. A. Weinert and M. Zimmermann. Easy to win, hard to master: Optimal strategies in parity games with costs. In CSL, volume 62 of LIPIcs, pages 31:1–31:17, 2016.
  29. U. Zwick and M. Paterson. The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. Theor. Comput. Sci., 158(1&2):343–359, 1996.
Citations (1)

Summary

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 0 likes about this paper.