Quantitative Reductions and Vertex-Ranked Infinite GamesThanks: Supported by by the project “TriCS” (ZI 1516/1-1) of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Saarbrücken Graduate School of Computer Science Affiliation: Reactive Systems Group, Saarland University, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany

A qualitative game $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Win})$ consists of an arena $\mathcal{A}$ with vertex set $V$ and a set $\mathrm{Win}\subseteq V^{\omega}$ of winning plays for Player $0$. The set of winning plays for Player $1$ is $V^{\omega}\setminus\mathrm{Win}$. As our definition of games is very general, the infinite object $\mathrm{Win}$ may not be finitely describable. If it is, however, in a slight abuse of notation, we define $|\mathcal{G}|$ as the sum of $|\mathcal{A}|$ and the size of a description of $\mathrm{Win}$.

A strategy $\sigma$ for Player $i$ is a winning strategy for $i$ in $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Win})$ if all plays consistent with $\sigma$ are winning for $i$. If Player $i$ has a winning strategy, then we say she wins $\mathcal{G}$. Solving a game amounts to determining its winner, if one exists. A game is determined if one player has a winning strategy.

Quantitative games extend the classical model of qualitative games. In a quantitative game, plays are not partitioned into winning and losing plays, but rather they are assigned some measure of quality. We keep this definition very general in order to encompass many of the already existing models. In Section 4, we define concrete examples of such games and show how to solve them optimally.

A quantitative game $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Cost})$ consists of an arena $\mathcal{A}$ with vertex set $V$ and a cost-function $\mathrm{Cost}\colon V^{\omega}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}_{\infty}$ for plays. Similarly to the winning condition in the qualitative case, $\mathrm{Cost}$ is an infinite object. If it is finitely describable, we, again slightly abusively, define the size $|\mathcal{G}|$ of $\mathcal{G}$ as the sum of $|\mathcal{A}|$ and the size of a description of $\mathrm{Cost}$. A play $\rho$ in $\mathcal{A}$ is winning for Player $0$ in $\mathcal{G}$ if $\mathrm{Cost}(\rho)<\infty$.¹¹ 1 In order to simplify the presentation, we only consider the case in which Player $0$ aims to minimize the cost of a play. All concepts in this work can, however, be easily adapted to the dual case in which Player $0$ aims to maximize the cost of a play. Winning strategies, the winner of a game, and solving a game are defined as in the qualitative case.

We extend the cost-function over plays to strategies by defining $\mathrm{Cost}(\sigma)=\sup_{\rho}\mathrm{Cost}(\rho)$ and $\mathrm{Cost}(\tau)=\inf_{\rho}\mathrm{Cost}(\rho)$, where $\rho$ ranges over the plays consistent with the strategy $\sigma$ for Player $0$ and over the plays consistent with the strategy $\tau$ for Player $1$, respectively. Moreover, we say that a strategy $\sigma$ for Player $0$ (Player $1$) is optimal if its cost is minimal (maximal) among all strategies for her (him).

For every strategy $\sigma$ for Player $0$, $\mathrm{Cost}(\sigma)<\infty$ implies that $\sigma$ is winning for Player $0$. However, the converse does not hold true: Each play consistent with some strategy $\sigma$ may have finite cost, while for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists a play $\rho$ consistent with $\sigma$ with $\mathrm{Cost}(\rho)\geq n$. Dually, a strategy $\tau$ for Player $1$ has $\mathrm{Cost}(\tau)=\infty$, if and only if $\tau$ is winning for him.

Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to $b$ if she has a strategy $\sigma$ with $\mathrm{Cost}(\sigma)\leq b$. Dually, if Player $1$ has a strategy $\tau$ with $\mathrm{Cost}(\tau)>b$, then he wins $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to $b$. Solving a quantitative game $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to $b$ amounts to deciding whether or not Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to $b$.

If Player $0$ has a strategy $\sigma$ with $\mathrm{Cost}(\sigma)\leq b$, then for all strategies $\tau$ for Player $1$ we have $\mathrm{Cost}(\tau)\leq b$. Dually, if Player $1$ has a strategy $\tau$ with $\mathrm{Cost}(\tau)>b$, then for all strategies $\sigma$ for Player $0$ we have $\mathrm{Cost}(\sigma)>b$. We say that a quantitative game is determined if for each $b\in\mathbb{N}$, either Player $0$ has a strategy with cost at most $b$, or Player $1$ has a strategy with cost strictly greater than $b$.

We say that $b\in\mathbb{N}$ is a cap of a quantitative game $\mathcal{G}$ if Player $0$ winning $\mathcal{G}$ implies that she has a strategy with cost at most $b$. A cap $b$ for a game $\mathcal{G}$ is tight if it is minimal.

Let us start by noting that solving vertex-ranked $\sup$-games is at least as hard as solving the underlying qualitative games. This is due to the fact that Player $0$ has a winning strategy in $(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Win})$ if and only if she has a strategy with cost at most zero in $(\mathcal{A},{\textsc{Rank}^{\sup}}(\mathrm{Win},\mathrm{rk}))$, where $\mathrm{rk}$ is the constant function assigning zero to every vertex.

We now turn our attention to finding an upper bound for the complexity of solving vertex-ranked $\sup$-games with respect to some bound. To achieve a general treatment of such games, we first introduce some notation. Let $\mathfrak{G}$ be a class of qualitative games. We define the extension of $\mathfrak{G}$ to vertex-ranked $\sup$-games as

We first show that we can use a decision procedure solving games from $\mathfrak{G}$ to solve games from ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\sup}$ with respect to a given $b$. To this end, we remove all vertices from which Player $1$ can enforce a visit to a vertex of rank greater than $b$ and proclaim that Player $0$ wins the quantitative game with respect to $b$ if and only if she wins the qualitative game corresponding to the resulting quantitative game. To ensure that we are able to solve the resulting qualitative game, we assume some closure properties of $\mathfrak{G}$.

Let $\mathcal{A}=(V,V_{0},V_{1},E,v_{I})$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\prime}=(V^{\prime},V^{\prime}_{0},V^{\prime}_{1},E^{\prime},v^{\prime}_{I})$ be arenas. We say that $\mathcal{A}^{\prime}$ is a sub-arena of $\mathcal{A}$ if $V^{\prime}\subseteq V$, $V^{\prime}_{0}\subseteq V_{0}$, $V^{\prime}_{1}\subseteq V_{1}$, and $E^{\prime}\subseteq E$ and write $\mathcal{A}^{\prime}\sqsubseteq\mathcal{A}$ in this case. We call a class of qualitative (or quantitative) games $\mathfrak{G}$ proper if for each $(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Win})$ (or $(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Cost})$) in $\mathfrak{G}$ and each sub-arena $\mathcal{A}^{\prime}\sqsubseteq\mathcal{A}$ the game $(\mathcal{A}^{\prime},\mathrm{Win}^{\prime})$ (or $(\mathcal{A}^{\prime},\mathrm{Cost}^{\prime})$), where $\mathrm{Win}^{\prime}$ (or $\mathrm{Cost}^{\prime}$) is the restriction of $\mathrm{Win}$ (or $\mathrm{Cost}$) to vertices from $\mathcal{A}^{\prime}$, is a member of $\mathfrak{G}$ as well, if all games in $\mathfrak{G}$ are determined and if all $\mathcal{G}\in\mathfrak{G}$ are finitely representable.

Moreover, in order to formalize the idea of removing vertices from which one player can enforce a visit to some set of vertices, we recall the attractor construction. Let $\mathcal{A}=(V,V_{0},V_{1},E,v_{I})$ be an arena with $n$ vertices and let $X\subseteq V$. We define $\mathrm{Attr}_{i}(X)=\mathrm{Attr}_{i}^{n}(X)$ inductively with $\mathrm{Attr}_{i}^{0}(X)=X$ and

Intuitively, the $i$-attractor $\mathrm{Attr}_{i}(X)$ is the set of all vertices from which Player $i$ can enforce a visit to $X$. The set $\mathrm{Attr}_{i}(X)$ can be computed in linear time in $|E|$ and Player $i$ has a positional strategy $\sigma$ such that each play starting in some vertex in $\mathrm{Attr}_{i}(X)$ and consistent with $\sigma$ eventually encounters some vertex from $X$ [22]. We call $\sigma$ the attractor strategy towards $X$.

Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}\in{\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\sup}$ with respect to some bound $b$ if and only if the initial vertex of $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}$ is not in the $1$-attractor $A$ of the vertices of rank greater than $b$, and if she is able to win the game $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ obtained from $\mathcal{G}$ by removing the $1$-attractor of $A$. Since $A$ is computable in linear time, we obtain a generic decision procedure solving vertex-ranked $\sup$-games in linear time and space.

This theorem provides an upper bound on the complexity of solving vertex-ranked $\sup$-games. Intuitively, we prove Theorem 5 by showing that, for any vertex-ranked $\sup$-game $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}$, a winning strategy for Player $0$ in $\mathcal{G}$ that never moves to the Player $1$-attractor towards vertices of rank greater than $b$ has cost at most $b$. Thus, an upper bound on the size of winning strategies for Player $0$ for games from $\mathfrak{G}$ provides an upper bound for strategies of finite cost in ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\sup}$ as well. Moreover, if the decision procedure deciding $\mathfrak{G}$ constructs winning strategies for one or both players, we can adapt the decision procedure deciding ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\sup}$ to construct strategies of cost at most (greater than) $b$ for Player $0$ (Player $1$) as well.

Finally, this procedure enables us to solve the optimization problem for vertex-ranked $\sup$-games from ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\sup}$: Recall that if Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}$ with respect to some $b$, she wins it with respect to all $b^{\prime}\geq b$ as well. Hence, using a binary search, $\log(n)$ invocations of the decision procedure obtained in the proof of Theorem 5 suffice to determine the minimal $b$ such that Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}$ with respect to $b$. Hence, it is possible to determine the minimal such $b$ in time $\mathcal{O}(\log(n)(n+t(|\mathcal{G}|)))$ and space $\mathcal{O}(n)+s(|\mathcal{G}|)$.

We now turn our attention to solving vertex-ranked $\limsup$-games. Solving these games is again at least as hard as solving their corresponding qualitative games, due to the same reasoning as given above for vertex-ranked $\sup$-games. Thus, we again only provide upper bounds on the complexity of solving such games. To this end, given some class $\mathfrak{G}$ of games, we define the corresponding class of vertex-ranked $\limsup$-games

We identify two criteria on classes of qualitative games $\mathfrak{G}$, each of which is sufficient for quantitative games in ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\lim}$ to be solvable with respect to some given $b$. More precisely, we provide decision procedures for ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\lim}$ for the case that

1. 1.

   games from $\mathfrak{G}$ can be solved in conjunction with coBüchi-conditions, and for the case that

2. 2.

   games from $\mathfrak{G}$ are prefix-independent.

For the first case, fix some class of games $\mathfrak{G}$ and let $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}=(\mathcal{A},{\textsc{Rank}^{\lim}}(\mathrm{Win},\mathrm{rk}))\in{\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\lim}$ with vertex set $V$. Moreover, recall that a play in $\mathrm{Win}$ has cost at most $b$ in $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}$ if it visits vertices of rank greater than $b$ only finitely often. In general, such behavior is formalized by the qualitative co-Büchi condition $\textsc{CoBüchi}(F)=\{\rho\in V^{\omega}\mid\inf(\rho)\cap F=\emptyset\}$, where $\inf(\rho)$ denotes the set of vertices occurring infinitely often in $\rho$. Clearly, Player $0$ has a strategy of cost at most $b$ in $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}$ if and only if she wins $(\mathcal{A},\mathrm{Win}\cap\textsc{CoBüchi}(\{v\in V\mid\mathrm{rk}(v)>b\}))$. This observation gives rise to the following remark.

In this case, we solve vertex-ranked $\limsup$-games via a decision procedure for solving qualitative games as-is. Such a procedure trivially exists if the winning conditions of games from $\mathfrak{G}$ are closed under intersection with co-Büchi conditions. Thus, we obtain solvability of a wide range of classes of vertex-ranked $\limsup$-games, e.g., co-Büchi-, parity-, Muller-, Streett- and Rabin games.

We now turn our attention to the second case described above: We consider classes ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\lim}$ where a play is only determined to be winning or losing in a game from $\mathfrak{G}$ due to some infinite suffix. Formally, we say that a qualitative winning condition $\mathrm{Win}\subseteq V^{\omega}$ is prefix-independent if for all infinite plays $\rho\in V^{\omega}$ and all play prefixes $\pi\in V^{*}$, we have $\rho\in\mathrm{Win}$ if and only if $\pi\rho\in\mathrm{Win}$. A qualitative game is prefix-independent if its winning condition is prefix-independent. A class of games is prefix-independent if every game in the class is prefix-independent.

Let $\mathfrak{G}$ be a prefix-independent class of games and let $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}\in{\mathfrak{G}}^{\textsc{rnk}}_{\lim}$. Moreover, let $b\in\mathbb{N}$. In order to solve $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}$ with respect to $b$, we adapt the classic algorithm for solving prefix-independent qualitative games (cf., e.g., the work by Chatterjee, Henzinger, and Piterman [14]). Thereby, we repeatedly compute the set of vertices from which Player $0$ has a strategy of cost at most $b$ in the corresponding vertex-ranked $\sup$-game  $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}$ and remove their attractor from the game similarly to the construction of a decision procedure for vertex-ranked $\sup$-games in Theorem 5. We claim that Player $0$ has a strategy with cost at most $b$ in $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}$ if and only if $v_{I}$ was not removed during the above construction.

Intuitively, we prove Theorem 8 by constructing a strategy $\sigma$ for Player $0$ by “stitching together” the attractor-strategies towards her winning regions in the decreasing vertex-ranked $\sup$-games and the winning strategies for her in the respective vertex-ranked $\sup$-games. As each play consistent with that strategy descends down the hierarchy of $\sup$-games thus constructed, we can reuse the memory states of the winning strategies in these games when implementing $\sigma$. Thus, a monotonic upper bound on the size of strategies with cost at most $b$ in $\mathcal{G}_{\sup}$ is an upper bound on the size of such strategies in $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}$ as well.

Moreover, in order to find the optimal $b$ such that Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}_{\lim}$ with respect to $b$, we can again employ a binary search. Thus, we can determine the optimal such $b$ in time $\mathcal{O}(\log(n)(n^{3}+n^{2}\cdot t(|\mathcal{G}|)))$ and space $\mathcal{O}(n+s(|\mathcal{G}|))$.

Having thus defined both quantitative reductions as well as a canonical target for such reductions, we now give an example of how to solve quantitative games using this tools.

Recall that a play satisfies the qualitative request-response condition if every request that is opened is eventually answered. We extend this condition to a quantitative one by equipping the edges of the arena with costs and measuring the maximal cost incurred between opening and answering a request.

Fix some arena $\mathcal{A}$ with vertex set $V$ and set $E$ of edges. Formally, the qualitative request-response condition $\textsc{ReqRes}(\Gamma)$ consists of a family of so-called request-response pairs $\Gamma=(Q_{c},P_{c})_{c\in[d]}$, where $Q_{c},P_{c}\subseteq V$ for all $c\in[d]$. Player $0$ wins a play according to this condition if each visit to some vertex from $Q_{c}$ is answered by some later visit to a vertex from $P_{c}$, i.e., we define

We say that a visit to a vertex from $Q_{c}$ opens a request for condition $c$ and that the first visit to a vertex from $P_{c}$ afterwards answers the request for that condition.

We extend this winning condition to a quantitative one using families of cost functions $\mathrm{Cost}=(\mathrm{Cost}_{c})_{c\in[d]}$, where $\mathrm{Cost}_{c}\colon E\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ for each $c\in[d]$ and lift the cost functions $\mathrm{Cost}_{c}$ to play infixes $\pi$ in $\mathcal{A}$ by adding up the costs along $\pi$. The cost-of-response for a request for condition $c$ at position $j$ is then defined as

with $\min\emptyset=\infty$, which naturally extends to the (total) cost-of-response

Finally, we define the request-response condition with costs as

i.e., it measures the maximal cost incurred by any request in $\rho$.

We call a game $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{A},\textsc{CostReqRes}(\Gamma,\mathrm{Cost}))$ a request-response game with costs. We denote the largest cost assigned to any edge by $W$. As we assume the functions $\mathrm{Cost}_{c}$ to be given in binary encoding, the largest cost $W$ assigned to an edge may be exponential in the description length of $\mathcal{G}$.

If all $\mathrm{Cost}_{c}$ assign zero to every edge, then the request-response condition with costs coincides with the qualitative request-response condition. In general, however, the request-response condition with costs is a strengthening of the classical request-response condition: If some play $\rho$ has finite cost according to the condition with costs, then it is winning for Player $0$ according to the qualitative condition, but not vice versa.

This remark together with a detour via qualitative request-response games yield a cap for request-response games with costs.

Having obtained a cap for request-response games with costs, we can now turn to the main result of this section: Request-response games with costs are reducible to vertex-ranked $\sup$-request-response games. In order to show this, we use a memory structure that keeps track of the costs incurred by the requests open at each point in the play [27].

Thus, in order to solve a request-response game with costs with respect to some $b$, it suffices to solve a vertex-ranked $\sup$-request-response game with respect to $b$. This, in turn, can be done by reducing the problem to that of solving a request-response game as shown in Theorem 5. Using this reduction together with the framework of quality-preserving reductions, we are able to provide an upper bound on the complexity of solving request-response games with respect to some bound $b$.

Moreover, solving request-response games is known to be ExpTime-hard [13]. Thus, solving quantitative request-response games via quantitative reductions is asymptotically optimal.

Also, recall that Player $0$ has a strategy with cost $b^{\prime}$ in some request-response game with costs if and only if she has a strategy with cost $b^{\prime}$ in the vertex-ranked $\sup$-request-response game $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$ constructed in the proof of Lemma 13, which has as many request-response pairs $d$ as $\mathcal{G}$. Due to Proposition 10, if she has a strategy of cost at most $b^{\prime}$ in $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$, she has one of the same cost and of size at most $d2^{d}$ in $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}$, as argued in Section 4.1. Hence, due to Theorem 4, we obtain an exponential upper bound on the size of optimal strategies for Player $0$.

Finally, the optimization problem of finding the minimal $b^{\prime}$ such that Player $0$ wins a request-response game $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to $b^{\prime}$ can be solved in exponential time as well. Recall that if Player $0$ wins $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to some $b^{\prime}$, then she also wins it with respect to all $b^{\prime\prime}\geq b^{\prime}$. Since we can assume $b^{\prime}\leq b=d2^{d}nW$, we can perform a binary search for $b^{\prime}$ on the interval $\{0,\dots,b\}$. Hence, the optimal $b^{\prime}$ can be found in time $\mathcal{O}(\log(b)n^{3}b^{3d}d2^{d})$.

We now demonstrate the flexibility and versatility of vertex-ranked games in their own right. To this end, we consider the problem of synthesizing a controller for a reactive system that is embedded into some environment. This setting is typically modeled as an infinite game in which Player $0$ and Player $1$ take the roles of the controller and of the environment, respectively. Here, we consider safety games, i.e., we assume that the specification for the controller is given as a game in which it is the aim of Player $0$ to keep the play inside a safe subset of the vertices.

Dallal et al. [15] argue that this setting is not sufficiently expressive to correctly model a real-world scenario, since it assumes that Player $0$ can accurately predict the effect of her actions on the state of the system. In a realistic setting, in contrast, faults may occur, i.e., an action chosen by a controller may be executed incorrectly, or it may not be executed at all.

In order to model such faults, Dallal et al introduce arenas with faults $\mathcal{A}_{F}=(V,V_{0},V_{1},E,F,v_{I})$, which consist of an arena $(V,V_{0},V_{1},E,v_{I})$ and a set of faults $F\subseteq V_{0}\times V$. In such an arena, whenever it is Player $0$’s turn, say at vertex $v$, a fault $(v,v^{\prime})\in F$ may occur, resulting in the play continuing in vertex $v^{\prime}$ instead of that chosen by Player $0$. Moreover, Dallal et al. consider safety conditions, i.e., qualitative winning conditions of the form $\mathrm{Safety}(S)=\{v_{0}v_{1}v_{2}\cdots\mid\forall i\in\mathbb{N}.\,v_{i}\in S\}$ for some $S\subseteq V$. Hence, it is the aim of Player $0$ to keep the play inside the “safe” set of vertices $S$. If the play leaves the set $S$, it is declared winning for Player $1$. The task at hand is to compute a fault-resilient strategy for Player $0$ that forces the play to remain inside $S$ and that can “tolerate” as many faults as possible.

Safety games without faults are solved by a simple attractor construction: As soon as the play enters $W_{1}=\mathrm{Attr}_{1}(V\setminus S)$, Player $1$ can play consistently with his attractor strategy towards $V\setminus S$ in order to win the play. Thus, it is Player $0$’s aim to keep the play inside $W_{0}=V\setminus W_{1}$.

Dallal et al. solve the problem of computing fault-resilient strategies for safety games by adapting the classical algorithm for solving safety games to this setting. In doing so, they obtain a value $\mathrm{val}(v)$ for each vertex $v$ that denotes the minimal number of faults that need to occur in order for the play to reach $W_{1}$, if Player $0$ plays well. Furthermore, they show that $\mathrm{val}$ can be computed in polynomial time in $|V|$. Finally, due to the existence of positional winning strategies for both players in safety games, they obtain $\mathrm{val}(v)\in[n]\cup\{\infty\}$ for all $v\in V$. Then, a fault-resilient strategy for Player $0$ is one that maximizes the minimal value $\mathrm{val}(v)$ witnessed during any play. Dallal et al. construct such a strategy on the fly during the computation of $\mathrm{val}(v)$ [15].

This task can, however, easily be reframed as a vertex ranked game in the arena $\mathcal{A}=(V,V_{0},V_{1},E,v_{I})$, which we obtain from $\mathcal{A}_{F}$ by omitting the faults. In that game, we assign to each vertex the rank $\mathrm{rk}(v)=|V|-\mathrm{val}(v)$ if $\mathrm{val}(v)\in[n]$ and $\mathrm{rk}(v)=0$ otherwise, i.e., if $\mathrm{val}(v)=\infty$. Then, Player $0$ has a strategy with cost at most $b$ in $\mathcal{G}^{\prime}=(\mathcal{A},{\textsc{Rank}^{\sup}}(\mathrm{Safety}(S),\mathrm{rk}))$ if and only if she has a winning strategy in the original safety game with faults that tolerates at least $|V|-b$ faults.