Good-for-Games Automata versus Deterministic Automata.

Similar documents
On Determinisation of History-Deterministic Automata.

4 Deterministic Büchi Automata

Theory of Computation Regular Languages. (NTU EE) Regular Languages Fall / 38

Theory of Computation Regular Languages

Finite Automata. Informatics 2A: Lecture 3. John Longley. 22 September School of Informatics University of Edinburgh

Minimal DFA. minimal DFA for L starting from any other

1 Nondeterministic Finite Automata

Regular expressions, Finite Automata, transition graphs are all the same!!

Lecture 9: LTL and Büchi Automata

Chapter 2 Finite Automata

Probabilistic Model Checking Michaelmas Term Dr. Dave Parker. Department of Computer Science University of Oxford

How Deterministic are Good-For-Games Automata?

Formal Methods in Software Engineering

CS 267: Automated Verification. Lecture 8: Automata Theoretic Model Checking. Instructor: Tevfik Bultan

Non-Deterministic Finite Automata. Fall 2018 Costas Busch - RPI 1

Finite-State Automata: Recap

Strong Bisimulation. Overview. References. Actions Labeled transition system Transition semantics Simulation Bisimulation

Nondeterminism. Nondeterministic Finite Automata. Example: Moves on a Chessboard. Nondeterminism (2) Example: Chessboard (2) Formal NFA

Automata Theory 101. Introduction. Outline. Introduction Finite Automata Regular Expressions ω-automata. Ralf Huuck.

5.1 Definitions and Examples 5.2 Deterministic Pushdown Automata

Convert the NFA into DFA

Non Deterministic Automata. Linz: Nondeterministic Finite Accepters, page 51

Chapter Five: Nondeterministic Finite Automata. Formal Language, chapter 5, slide 1

Introduction to ω-autamata

Finite Automata. Informatics 2A: Lecture 3. Mary Cryan. 21 September School of Informatics University of Edinburgh

Deterministic Finite Automata

Coalgebra, Lecture 15: Equations for Deterministic Automata

CISC 4090 Theory of Computation

Lexical Analysis Finite Automate

Speech Recognition Lecture 2: Finite Automata and Finite-State Transducers

Automata, Games, and Verification

12.1 Nondeterminism Nondeterministic Finite Automata. a a b ε. CS125 Lecture 12 Fall 2014

CS103B Handout 18 Winter 2007 February 28, 2007 Finite Automata

Nondeterminism and Nodeterministic Automata

Let's start with an example:

Regular Expressions (RE) Regular Expressions (RE) Regular Expressions (RE) Regular Expressions (RE) Kleene-*

How Deterministic are Good-For-Games Automata?

From LTL to Symbolically Represented Deterministic Automata

Lecture 08: Feb. 08, 2019

Deterministic Finite-State Automata

Learning Moore Machines from Input-Output Traces

CHAPTER 1 Regular Languages. Contents. definitions, examples, designing, regular operations. Non-deterministic Finite Automata (NFA)

CS:4330 Theory of Computation Spring Regular Languages. Equivalences between Finite automata and REs. Haniel Barbosa

CS415 Compilers. Lexical Analysis and. These slides are based on slides copyrighted by Keith Cooper, Ken Kennedy & Linda Torczon at Rice University

12.1 Nondeterminism Nondeterministic Finite Automata. a a b ε. CS125 Lecture 12 Fall 2016

Non-deterministic Finite Automata

AUTOMATA AND LANGUAGES. Definition 1.5: Finite Automaton

Java II Finite Automata I

Nondeterministic Biautomata and Their Descriptional Complexity

Speech Recognition Lecture 2: Finite Automata and Finite-State Transducers. Mehryar Mohri Courant Institute and Google Research

Normal Forms for Context-free Grammars

CS 301. Lecture 04 Regular Expressions. Stephen Checkoway. January 29, 2018

Formal Language and Automata Theory (CS21004)

Anatomy of a Deterministic Finite Automaton. Deterministic Finite Automata. A machine so simple that you can understand it in less than one minute

Controlling a population of identical NFA

Automata and Languages

CHAPTER 1 Regular Languages. Contents

Non-deterministic Finite Automata

CSCI 340: Computational Models. Kleene s Theorem. Department of Computer Science

Categorical approaches to bisimilarity

NFAs and Regular Expressions. NFA-ε, continued. Recall. Last class: Today: Fun:

Fundamentals of Computer Science

Grammar. Languages. Content 5/10/16. Automata and Languages. Regular Languages. Regular Languages

Regular languages refresher

Converting Regular Expressions to Discrete Finite Automata: A Tutorial

11.1 Finite Automata. CS125 Lecture 11 Fall Motivation: TMs without a tape: maybe we can at least fully understand such a simple model?

Closure Properties of Regular Languages

1.4 Nonregular Languages

Non-Deterministic Finite Automata

Worked out examples Finite Automata

a,b a 1 a 2 a 3 a,b 1 a,b a,b 2 3 a,b a,b a 2 a,b CS Determinisitic Finite Automata 1

First Midterm Examination

CS 188: Artificial Intelligence Spring 2007

1. For each of the following theorems, give a two or three sentence sketch of how the proof goes or why it is not true.

Designing finite automata II

CS 275 Automata and Formal Language Theory

Chapter 1, Part 1. Regular Languages. CSC527, Chapter 1, Part 1 c 2012 Mitsunori Ogihara 1

First Midterm Examination

An Automata Toolbox. Mikołaj Bojańczyk and Wojciech Czerwiński

Bernd Finkbeiner Date: October 25, Automata, Games, and Verification: Lecture 2

Formal languages, automata, and theory of computation

Software Engineering using Formal Methods

Revision Sheet. (a) Give a regular expression for each of the following languages:

State Minimization for DFAs

Formal Languages and Automata

CS375: Logic and Theory of Computing

CDM Automata on Infinite Words

CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages

Model Reduction of Finite State Machines by Contraction

Lecture 6 Regular Grammars

5. (±±) Λ = fw j w is string of even lengthg [ 00 = f11,00g 7. (11 [ 00)± Λ = fw j w egins with either 11 or 00g 8. (0 [ ffl)1 Λ = 01 Λ [ 1 Λ 9.

Jim Lambers MAT 169 Fall Semester Lecture 4 Notes

CSCI 340: Computational Models. Transition Graphs. Department of Computer Science

Types of Finite Automata. CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages. Comparing DFAs and NFAs. NFA for (a b)*abb.

Chapter 4 Regular Grammar and Regular Sets. (Solutions / Hints)

CMPSCI 250: Introduction to Computation. Lecture #31: What DFA s Can and Can t Do David Mix Barrington 9 April 2014

Types of Finite Automata. CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages. Comparing DFAs and NFAs. Comparing DFAs and NFAs (cont.) Finite Automata 2

NFA DFA Example 3 CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages. Equivalence of DFAs and NFAs. Equivalence of DFAs and NFAs (cont.

Finite Automata-cont d

CMSC 330: Organization of Programming Languages. DFAs, and NFAs, and Regexps (Oh my!)

Transcription:

Good-for-Gmes Automt versus Deterministic Automt. Denis Kuperberg 1,2 Mich l Skrzypczk 1 1 University of Wrsw 2 IRIT/ONERA (Toulouse) Séminire MoVe 12/02/2015 LIF, Luminy

Introduction Deterministic utomt re centrl tool in utomt theory: Polynomil lgorithms for inclusion, complementtion. Sfe composition with gmes, trees. Solutions of the synthesis problem (verifiction). Esily implemented. Problems : exponentil stte blow-up technicl constructions (Sfr) Cn we weken the notion of determinism while preserving some good properties?

Good-for-Gmes utomt Ide : Nondeterminism cn be resolved without knowledge bout the future.

Good-for-Gmes utomt Ide : Nondeterminism cn be resolved without knowledge bout the future. Introduced independently in symbolic representtion (Henzinger, Pitermn 06) simplifiction qulittive models (Colcombet 09) replce determinism Applictions synthesis brnching time verifiction tree lnguges (Boker, K, Kupfermn, S 12)

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 System:

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 System: O 1

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 System: O 1

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 System: O 1 O 2

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 I 3 System: O 1 O 2

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 I 3 System: O 1 O 2 O 3

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 I 3 System: O 1 O 2 O 3 System wins iff (I 1, O 1 ), (I 2, O 2 ), (I 3, O 3 ),... = ϕ.

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 I 3 System: O 1 O 2 O 3 System wins iff (I 1, O 1 ), (I 2, O 2 ), (I 3, O 3 ),... = ϕ. Clssicl pproch: ϕ A det then solve gme on A det.

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 I 3 System: O 1 O 2 O 3 System wins iff (I 1, O 1 ), (I 2, O 2 ), (I 3, O 3 ),... = ϕ. Clssicl pproch: ϕ A det then solve gme on A det. Wrong pproch: ϕ A non det : no plyer cn guess the future.

Evluting gme Synthesis : design system responding to environment, while stisfying constrint ϕ. Environment: I 1 I 2 I 3 System: O 1 O 2 O 3 System wins iff (I 1, O 1 ), (I 2, O 2 ), (I 3, O 3 ),... = ϕ. Clssicl pproch: ϕ A det then solve gme on A det. Wrong pproch: ϕ A non det : no plyer cn guess the future. New pproch: ϕ A GFG.

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: b Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: b c Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b,c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: b c c Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: b c c... = w Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c Plyer GFG wins if: w L Run ccepting.

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: b c c... = w Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c Plyer GFG wins if: w L Run ccepting. A GFG mens tht there is strtegy σ : A Q, for ccepting words of L(A).

Definition vi gme A utomton on finite or infinite words. Refuter plys letters: b c c... = w Prover: controls trnsitions, b, c b, b, c q 0 q 1 q 2 b, c c Plyer GFG wins if: w L Run ccepting. A GFG mens tht there is strtegy σ : A Q, for ccepting words of L(A). How close is this to determinism?

Some properties of GFG utomt Composition with gmes: A G hs sme winner s G with condition L(A).

Some properties of GFG utomt Composition with gmes: A G hs sme winner s G with condition L(A). Theorem If A is nondeterministic nd B is GFG, it is in P to decide whether L(A) L(B).

Some properties of GFG utomt Composition with gmes: A G hs sme winner s G with condition L(A). Theorem If A is nondeterministic nd B is GFG, it is in P to decide whether L(A) L(B). Theorem (Boker, K, Kupfermn, Skrzypczk, ICALP 12) If A nd B re GFG for L nd L, there is deterministic utomton for L of size A B.

Some properties of GFG utomt Composition with gmes: A G hs sme winner s G with condition L(A). Theorem If A is nondeterministic nd B is GFG, it is in P to decide whether L(A) L(B). Theorem (Boker, K, Kupfermn, Skrzypczk, ICALP 12) If A nd B re GFG for L nd L, there is deterministic utomton for L of size A B. Theorem (Boker, K, Kupfermn, Skrzypczk, ICALP 12) Let A be n utomton for L A ω. Then the tree version of A recognizes {t : ll brnches of t re in L} if nd only if A is GFG.

An utomton tht is not GFG This utomton for L = ( + b) ω is not GFG:, b p, b q Opponent strtegy: ply until Eve goes in q, then ply b ω.

An utomton tht is not GFG This utomton for L = ( + b) ω is not GFG:, b p, b q Opponent strtegy: ply until Eve goes in q, then ply b ω. Fct GFG utomt with condition C hve sme expressivity s deterministic utomt with condition C. Therefore, GFG could improve succinctness but not expressivity.

An utomton tht is not GFG This utomton for L = ( + b) ω is not GFG:, b p, b q Opponent strtegy: ply until Eve goes in q, then ply b ω. Fct GFG utomt with condition C hve sme expressivity s deterministic utomt with condition C. Therefore, GFG could improve succinctness but not expressivity. But GFG on finite words deterministic (+useless trnsitions). Wht bout infinite words?

A GFG Büchi exmple Büchi condition: Run is ccepting if infinitely mny Büchi trnsitions re seen. x x x b b b x b Lnguge: [(x + xb) (xx + xbxb)] ω

Determiniztion of Büchi GFG Theorem Let A GFG Büchi utomton. There exists deterministic Büchi utomton B with L(B) = L(A) nd B A 2. Proof scheme: Use brutl powerset deterministion, rnk signtures of Wlukiewicz itertive normliztion of A dependency grph over the utomton Conclusion: the utomton cn use itself s memory structure qudrtic blow-up only. Is it true for ll ω-regulr conditions?

CoBüchi counter-exmple : the lnguge L n n pths: σ, π permute pths, cuts the current 0-pth. Here for n = 5: α: σ π σ π σ π DAG: 0 1 2 3 4 time: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The word α is in L n if it contins n infinite pth.

Automton for L n GFG cobüchi utomton for L n with n sttes: letters σ nd π permute sttes deterministiclly. letter : stte 0 go nywhere but py cobüchi (must be finitely mny times) sttes 1,..., n: do nothing Strtegy σ: try pths one fter the other. Uses memory 2 n, to ensure tht ll pths re visited.

Automton for L n GFG cobüchi utomton for L n with n sttes: letters σ nd π permute sttes deterministiclly. letter : stte 0 go nywhere but py cobüchi (must be finitely mny times) sttes 1,..., n: do nothing Strtegy σ: try pths one fter the other. Uses memory 2 n, to ensure tht ll pths re visited. Theorem Any deterministic utomton for L n hs Ω(2 n ) sttes. CoBüchi (nd prity) GFG utomt cn provide both succinctness nd sound behviour with respect to gmes. Question: Cn we effectively use them?

Recognizing GFG utomt Question: Given n utomton A, is it GFG? Theorem The complexity of deciding GFG-ness is in NP for Büchi utomt P for cobüchi utomt (involved proof) t lest s hrd s solving prity gmes (NP conp) for prity utomt. Open Problems Is it in P for ny fixed cceptnce condition? Is it equivlent to prity gmes in the generl cse?

Summry nd conclusion Results GFG utomt cpture good properties of deterministic utomt. Inclusion is in P, but Complementtion Deterministion. Conditions Büchi nd lower: GFG Deterministic. Conditions cobüchi nd higher: exponentil succinctness. Recognizing GFG cobüchi is in P. Open Problems Cn we build smll GFG utomt in systemtic wy? Complexity of deciding GFG-ness for prity utomt? Exct cost of Büchi GFG deterministion?