A Comparison of BDD-Based Parity Game Solvers

The algorithm by Zielonka is a divide and conquer algorithm that searches for dominions in subgames. This algorithm is essentially distilled from a constructive proof of the positional determinacy of parity games by, among others, Zielonka [31]. Despite the fact that the algorithm has a relatively bad theoretical worst-case complexity (it runs in $\mathcal{O}(mn^{d})$ where $n$ is the number of vertices, $m$ the number of edges and $d$ is the number of different priorities in the game) and exponential worst-case examples are known for various classes of special games [20], the algorithm remains among the most successful solvers for parity games in practice, see [19] and the recent exploration [15].

Zielonka’s algorithm (see Algorithm 1) constructs winning regions for both players out of the solution of subgames with fewer different priorities and vertices. For this, the algorithm relies on the fact that higher priorities in the game dominate lower priorities, and that any forced revisit of these higher priorities is beneficial to the player associated with the parity of the priority. For non-trivial games, the algorithm relies on attractor set computations (see lines 8 and 10) to identify those vertices that can be forced to visit the maximal priority; the remaining vertices are then solved recursively (see line 9).

Assuming that the maximal priority is of parity $\alpha$, the outcome of the first recursion yields a dominion for $\bar{\alpha}$ in the subgame. In case this dominion is $\bar{\alpha}$-maximal in the entire game, $\alpha$ wins all vertices outside the dominion of player $\bar{\alpha}$ (lines 11-12). This can be seen as follows: since the game restricted to $V\setminus B$ (where $B$ is computed in line 10) is $\bar{\alpha}$-closed, the opponent can choose to stay within the subgame $W_{\alpha}$; choosing to do so means she will lose. So the only option she has is to escape. But the only escape she has leads, via $A$, to the maximal priority which has the parity of $\alpha$. Note that if $\alpha$ is forced to leave this maximal priority she will again end up in the same subgame; any play that does so ad infinitum visits the maximal priority infinitely often and is therefore won by $\alpha$. In case $\bar{\alpha}$’s dominion is not maximal, we can remove its $\bar{\alpha}$-attractor $B$ from the game and recursively solve the remaining subgame and use its solution to construct the solution of the entire game (lines 14 and 15).

Note that rather than solving the entire game at once, one can first decompose a game into its strongly connected components (SCCs) and first solve the bottom SCCs. The SCC decomposition can be integrated tightly in the algorithm so that in each recursive call first an SCC decomposition is performed. While this may sound expensive, in [20] it is shown that this actually allows the algorithm to run in polynomial time on many practically relevant classes of special games such as solitaire and dull games for which the original algorithm might require exponential time otherwise.

The recent Priority Promotion (PP) algorithm [7] starts, like Zielonka’s recursive algorithm, with a game decomposition that aims at identifying dominions for a given player. In contrast to Zielonka’s algorithm, however, the PP algorithm does not explicitly solve subgames. Instead, within a fixed game, it uses a dominion searcher that maintains a set of vertices, along with an updated (promoted) priority mapping and zooms in on a dominion within that set of vertices. Once an $\alpha$-dominion is returned by the dominion searcher, the search for another dominion continues until the entire game is solved, see Algorithm 2.

The main complexity and novelty of the PP algorithm lies in the way it identifies a dominion. To this end, it relaxes the notion of a dominion to a quasi $\alpha$-dominion. A quasi $\alpha$-dominion is a set $U$ of vertices for which $\alpha$ has a strategy that guarantees that every play that remains within $U$ is won by $\alpha$, or that exits $U$ via the $\bar{\alpha}$-escape of $U$. The $\alpha$-escape of a set $U$, denoted $\textit{esc}^{\alpha}_{G}(U)$ is the set of vertices from which $\alpha$ can force play out of $U$ in a single move; i.e., $\textit{esc}^{\alpha}_{G}(U)={\rm Phys.~Rev.~E}{\alpha}{V\setminus U}\cap U$. A quasi $\alpha$-dominion $U$ in a game $G$ is said to be $\alpha$-closed iff $\textit{esc}^{\bar{\alpha}}_{G}(U)=\emptyset$; otherwise it is said to be $\alpha$-open. Note that an $\alpha$-closed quasi $\alpha$-dominion is an $\alpha$-dominion. When the $\bar{\alpha}$-escape set of a quasi $\alpha$-dominion only contains vertices with the highest priority in the game, the $\alpha$ quasi-dominion is called an $\alpha$-region.

By searching for quasi-dominions, the algorithm avoids the ‘hard’ problem of identifying the (set of) priorities that lead to a player winning its dominion. Under certain conditions, these quasi-dominions offer just enough guarantees that when composed, the result is a dominion. Regions meet these conditions. The dominion searcher, see Algorithm 3, essentially traverses a partial order of states which contain information about the open regions the searcher has computed up to that point. Once the searcher finds a closed region it terminates and returns this dominion to the solver. Conceptually the searcher assigns to each $\alpha$-region it finds a priority that under-approximates the best value the opponent $\bar{\alpha}$ must visit when escaping from the $\alpha$-region. A higher $\alpha$-region $U_{1}$ can then be merged with a lower region $U_{2}$, yielding a new $\alpha$-region and improving the under-approximation of $U_{2}$ by promoting its best escape value.

The searcher first checks whether the set of vertices $U$ that dominate the current state induces a closed region $A$ within the entire game; if so, the region is returned and the search is finished (lines 2-8). If the region is open, the opponent $\bar{\alpha}$ may escape. When the region is open in the current state, she may try to escape to some inferior priority within the subgraph; if the region is closed in the current state, she can only escape to some region in the larger game and end up in a priority that dominates $m_{g}$.

In case the region is open in the current state (line 11-14), the priority function of the current state is updated to set all vertices in $A$ to the currently dominating priority $m_{g}$. This is achieved by the update $p_{g}^{*}\leftarrow p_{g}[U\mapsto m_{g}]$ which is defined as $p_{g}^{*}(v)=m_{g}$ in case $v\in U$ and $p_{g}^{*}(v)=p_{g}(v)$ otherwise. The new priority for the subgraph that will be explored is set to the next largest priority in the graph (line 13) and $A$ is removed from the subgraph (line 14). This new state is then explored recursively (see line 20). In case the region is closed in the current state (line 16-18), the opponent must escape (if she wants to) to vertices in the larger game. The best escape priority she can force is the minimal priority among the set of vertices that she can force to reach in a single step. This is given by the function $\textit{bep}^{\alpha}_{p_{g}}(A)$ which yields the minimum priority (according to $p_{g}$) of the set $\{w\in V\setminus A\mid\exists v\in A\cap V_{\alpha}:w\in vE\}$. The dominating priority $m_{g}$ is updated to $m_{g}^{*}$ to reflect this best escape priority (see line 16) after which $p_{g}$ is updated to $p_{g}^{*}$. In this update, all vertices in $A$ are set to priority $m_{g}^{*}$ while all vertices with priorities exceeding $m_{g}^{*}$ remain unchanged. All vertices with priorities dominated by $m_{g}^{*}$ are reset to their original value. This is achieved by the update in line 17. Here, $p_{g}^{\geq m}$ yields the partial function that coincides with $p_{g}$ on the (maximal) domain $V^{\prime}\subseteq V$ for which $p_{g}(v)\geq m$ for all $v\in V^{\prime}$, and is undefined elsewhere. The update $p\uplus p_{g}$, for a partial function $p_{g}$ is then defined as $(p\uplus p_{g})(v)=p(v)$ in case $v\notin\textsf{dom}(p_{g})$ and $p_{g}(v)$ otherwise. The subgraph of $G$ that is explored next is set to all vertices with (promoted) priority no larger than $m_{g}^{*}$. This newly constructed state is then again recursively explored (see line 20).

The PP algorithm resets all information in lower regions when promoting vertices. As observed in [5, 6], this can be improved by only resetting regions of the opponent, or even a subset of that. While this affects the performance for some artificial worst-case examples, these improvements do not lead to improvements on games stemming from practical applications, nor on random games [15].

The third algorithm we consider is the so-called Fixpoint-Iteration (FI) algorithm. It is essentially based on the reduction of the parity game solving problem to the modal $\mu$-calculus model checking problem. This transformation views a parity game as a graph with state labels indicating the owner (by associating a proposition Even or Odd to a state) and priority of a vertex (by associating a proposition $\textsf{prio}_{i}$ to a state representing a vertex with priority $i$), while the winning regions $W_{0}$ and $W_{1}$ of the game are characterised by a so-called Walukiewicz $\mu$-calculus formula.

Rather than using a general-purpose modal $\mu$-calculus model checker for model checking a parity game, we here recall the algorithm given by Bruse et al. [9], see Algorithm 4. This algorithm works directly on a (pre-processed) parity game, essentially checking the following formula¹¹ 1 Here, $\mu$ and $\nu$ are the least and greatest fixpoint, respectively, $\diamond$ is the may modality, $\Box$ is the must modality, Even, Odd and $\textsf{prio}_{i}$ are propositions and $\overline{\textsf{prio}}_{i}$ is the negation of $\textsf{prio}_{i}$. for games with least priority $0$, and a similar formula for games with least priority $1$:

The pre-processing guarantees that the parity game is compressed: i.e., it ensures that the set of priorities occurring in the game constitute an integer interval with least priority $0$ or $1$. Note that converting a parity game to a compressed parity game can be done without changing the solution to the game.

The main loop of the algorithm evaluates the fixpoint-free part of the Walukiewicz formula using the current values for the variables $X_{0}\dots X_{d-1}$. The evaluation gives rise to new values for these variables until a fixpoint is reached for all variables; at that moment, variable $X_{d-1}$ contains all vertices that satisfy the formula, and, by construction, are won by player $0$.

Note that the re-initialisation of all variables $X_{0}\dots X_{d-1}$ can be optimised by exploiting monotonicity of the formula, reducing the overall complexity from exponential in $d$ to exponential in $\lceil d/2\rceil$, see e.g. [28]. This can be done by first computing the smallest index $i$ for which $X_{i}$ is not yet stable, and only resetting $X_{i-1},X_{i-3},\dots$ afterwards, thus yielding an algorithm that is closely related to the small progress measures algorithm, see [9]. We have included this optimisation in our implementation.

The APT²² 2 The description of the algorithm in [29] seems to contain several small mistakes and implementing it that way yields incorrect solutions; our exposition is based on their actual OCaml implementation in PGSolver. algorithm, introduced by Kupferman and Vardi [26], is studied and implemented in [29]. This algorithm solves parity games by solving the emptiness problem of a corresponding alternating parity word automaton, which, in turn, is solved by checking the emptiness of an equivalent weak alternating word automaton. Rather than explicitly constructing this weak alternating word automaton, the APT algorithm, see Algorithm 5, constructs this automaton implicitly, checking emptiness on-the-fly.

APT uses two disjoint sets of vertices $V_{V}$ (Visiting vertices) and $V_{A}$ (Avoiding vertices) for solving a parity game. It declares a vertex Visiting for a player just whenever by reaching that vertex she can force a winning play; dually, a vertex is Avoiding for a player whenever by reaching that vertex she cannot force any winning play. These sets derive their meaning from a generalisation of the parity game winning condition, in which player $0$ wins a play as soon as $V_{V}$ is visited, player $1$ wins as soon as $V_{A}$ is visited, and the traditional parity game condition applies if neither $V_{V}$ nor $V_{A}$ are ever visited. Furthermore, the algorithm keeps track of an index $i$, representing the most significant priority in the game for which the winners of the vertices with that priority have not yet been decided for the given sets $V_{V}$ and $V_{A}$.

PGSolver [19] is a collection of parity game solving algorithms programmed in OCaml, which includes a tool randomgame to generate (possibly self-loop-free) random parity games with a fixed number of vertices. Running randomgame N P L H x generates a game with N vertices; each vertex $v$ is assigned a priority that is chosen uniformly from the interval $[0,\texttt{P}-1]$, and ownership $0$ with probability $\frac{1}{2}$ and ownership $1$ with probability $\frac{1}{2}$. Each vertex is connected to $d$ distinct neighbours, where $d$ is chosen uniformly from the interval $[\texttt{L},\texttt{H}]$. Since the tool generates explicit graphs in the PGSolver format, we automatically converted these games to BDDs using a binary encoding for the vertices.

For our first batch of experiments, we considered both dense and low out-degree, self-loop-free random games with a high number of distinct priorities, varying $\texttt{N}\in\{250,500,1\,000,2\,000,4\,000\}$:

• •

  low out-degree random games generated using randomgame N N 1 2 x;

• •

  dense random games generated using randomgame N N 1 N x;

For each class of random games and each value of N we generated 20 parity games. Table 1 lists the cumulative runtime (in seconds) for solving these parity games. We set a timeout of 12 000 (cumulative) seconds for each experiment; a timeout is denoted by $\mathbf{\dagger_{T}}$. Experiments requiring over 15Gb memory are aborted; we indicate this by $\mathbf{\dagger_{M}}$.

We observe that for both types of games, the explicit Zielonka and PP solvers substantially outperform the symbolic solvers, see Table 1. Of note is that both APT and FI fail on all accounts, which we believe is due to the large number of distinct priorities in the random games, causing both algorithms to require an excessively large number of iterations. The symbolic PP implementation outperforms the symbolic Zielonka implementation for low out-degree games that have large number of vertices and different priorities, but for smaller number of vertices and small number of different priorities, Zielonka performs better, but only marginally so. For games that consist of more than 2 000 vertices, the BDD approach fails dramatically, especially in the case of dense games.

We can trace the poor performance of the symbolic solvers to the overly complex and unstructured BDDs underlying the random graphs. These unwieldy BDD representations are caused by the lack of structure provided by the binary encoding of vertices and edges, leading to a poor compression ratio: typically, BDDs remain concise if two adjacent vertices (i.e., vertices related by $E$) only differ in their representation by a relatively small number of bits. The binary encoding, however, does not guarantee this. Variable-reordering heuristics may help in some cases but are not guaranteed to do so. As a result, the BDDs themselves require an excessive amount of memory (as witnessed by the out-of-memory issues in modest-sized dense random graphs), and operations on these BDDs lead to excessive running times. As such, these experiments may not be good predictors for running times of the symbolic algorithms on games encoding practical verification problems. However, they do suggest that FI and APT both suffer significantly from a poor compression ratio. Zielonka and PP, on the other hand, are (relatively) less susceptible to a poor compression ratio.

For our next batch of random experiments, we repeat the experiments conducted in [29]. In that work, the authors observe that the APT algorithm outperforms Zielonka’s algorithm for games in which the number of vertices is exponential in the number of priorities in a game, as long as the base is sufficiently large: they show that APT outperforms Zielonka for $\texttt{N}\approx c^{\texttt{P}}$, for $c=e$ or $c=10$, but for $c=2$, Zielonka outperforms APT. Games in which the number of vertices is exponential in the number of distinct priorities are typical of games encoding practical verification and synthesis problems. We generate dense random games with a priority/vertex ratio given by the relation $\texttt{N}\approx c^{\texttt{P}}$, for $c\in\{2,e,10,13\}$, using randomgame N P 1 N x; i.e., we extend the experiments of [29] by also considering $c=13$. We again generate 20 random games per experiment, and set a timeout at 12 000 seconds (cumulative), see Table 2.

Table 2 illustrates that Zielonka has a slight edge over PP. Comparing the results in Table 2 to the experimental outcomes in [29], we find some interesting differences. First, whereas in [29], the APT algorithm is found to significantly outperform Zielonka’s algorithm for $c=e$ and $c=10$, our results do not provide such clear indications. We do see that for $c=10$ and $c=13$, the running times of the APT algorithm becomes more in line with that of Zielonka and PP. The behaviour of FI illustrates a more pronounced correlation between the number of vertices and the number of priorities in a game, suggesting that in a symbolic setting, the FI algorithm may actually perform quite well on games that encode verification problems that typically result in only a few distinct priorities. We test this hypothesis by comparing the performance on a number of (large) parity games originating from model checking problems, mostly taken from the Keiren Benchmark set.

In [25], Keiren describes and provides a set of parity games that originate from over 300 model checking problems, originating from 21 specifications. The main obstacle in reusing the data set is that the games are encoded as explicit graphs in the PGSolver format. This means that most of the structure that a BDD solver can typically exploit for compactly representing the game graph is lost. As we concluded from the random games generated by PGSolver, a binary encoding of the sets involved leads to severe performance degradation of the solvers, and given the size of the graphs, there is little hope the running times of our algorithms on such encoded BDDs provide meaningful information. We have coped with this by generating BDDs from the original specifications for several of the model checking games included in the Keiren benchmark set.⁴⁴ 4 To this end, we developed a special-purpose pbes2bdd tool for converting (a fragment of) parameterised Boolean equation systems in Standard Recursive Form, containing only Boolean data parameters, to BDDs. The tool currently does not guarantee totality of the generated parity game; instead, it relies on the user to guarantee that this is the case. Note that the conversion of the original specifications to BDDs is not straightforward: most games stem from model checking problems for system models that employ (unbounded) lists, natural numbers, etcetera, for which no trivial bounds can be established. The results can be found in Table 3; here, $\mathbf{\dagger_{M}}$ indicates that the computation was aborted because it needed more than 15Gb of memory.

We again compared our BDD-based implementations of the four parity game solving algorithms to the explicit Zielonka and PP solvers of the pbespgsolve tool⁵⁵ 5 Of note is the fact that for our explicit solvers, we only compute the solution to the vertices reachable from a designated vertex (typically the vertex that indicates whether the modal $\mu$-calculus formula holds for the initial state of a system); we have excluded the (typically significant) time required for constructing this reachable subgame and only list the time required to solve the resulting (sub)game. The game that is solved by the explicit solvers can thus be orders of magnitude smaller than the games solved by our symbolic solvers, as these do not conduct a reachability analysis. (indicated by the ‘exp’ fields in Table 3).

First, observe that all four symbolic solvers perform quite well on all games, sometimes significantly outperforming the two explicit solvers. In particular, none of the symbolic solvers run out-of-memory; in fact, memory usage for all games stays well below 500Mb. This sharply contrasts the explicit solvers, which, for the larger games that can be solved consume 8Gb or more. We furthermore note that the runtime performance of the symbolic solvers appears to be more robust than that of the explicit solvers.

Second, we observe that both FI and APT clearly outperform Zielonka and PP. The PP and Zielonka algorithms perform comparably on these games, with Zielonka having an insignificant edge over PP; in this regard, the outcomes of these experiments are largely similar to the collective outcome of our experiments using random games.