skip to main content
research-article
Open Access
Artifacts Available
Artifacts Evaluated & Functional

Strategy synthesis for linear arithmetic games

Published:27 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many problems in formal methods can be formalized as two-player games. For several applications—program synthesis, for example—in addition to determining which player wins the game, we are interested in computing a winning strategy for that player. This paper studies the strategy synthesis problem for games defined within the theory of linear rational arithmetic. Two types of games are considered. A satisfiability game, described by a quantified formula, is played by two players that take turns instantiating quantifiers. The objective of each player is to prove (or disprove) satisfiability of the formula. A reachability game, described by a pair of formulas defining the legal moves of each player, is played by two players that take turns choosing positions—rational vectors of some fixed dimension. The objective of each player is to reach a position where the opposing player has no legal moves (or to play the game forever). We give a complete algorithm for synthesizing winning strategies for satisfiability games and a sound (but necessarily incomplete) algorithm for synthesizing winning strategies for reachability games.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

lineararithmeticgames.webm

References

  1. Aws Albarghouthi, Isil Dillig, and Arie Gurfinkel. 2016. Maximal specification synthesis. In POPL. 789–801. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rajeev Alur, Rastislav Bodik, Garvit Juniwal, Milo MK Martin, Mukund Raghothaman, Sanjit A Seshia, Rishabh Singh, Armando Solar-Lezama, Emina Torlak, and Abhishek Udupa. 2013. Syntax-guided synthesis. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), 2013. IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Rajeev Alur, Salar Moarref, and Ufuk Topcu. 2016. Compositional Synthesis of Reactive Controllers for Multi-agent Systems. In CAV. 251–269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Thomas Ball and Orna Kupferman. 2006. An abstraction-refinement framework for multi-agent systems. In LICS. IEEE, 379–388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tewodros Beyene, Swarat Chaudhuri, Corneliu Popeea, and Andrey Rybalchenko. 2014. A Constraint-based Approach to Solving Games on Infinite Graphs. In POPL. 221–233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tewodros A. Beyene, Corneliu Popeea, and Andrey Rybalchenko. 2013. Solving Existentially Quantified Horn Clauses. In CAV. 869–882. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Nikolaj Bjørner and Mikolás Janota. 2015. Playing with Quantified Satisfaction. In LPAR - short presentations. 15–27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Régis Blanc, Ashutosh Gupta, Laura Kovács, and Bernhard Kragl. 2013. Tree Interpolation in Vampire. In LPAR-19. 173–181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Marijke Bodlaender, Cor Hurkens, Vincent Kusters, Frank Staals, Gerhard Woeginger, and Hans Zantema. 2012. Cinderella versus the Wicked Stepmother. In IFIP TCS. 57–71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Thierry Cachat. 2002. Symbolic strategy synthesis for games on pushdown graphs. In ICALP. 704–715. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Thierry Cachat. 2003. Uniform solution of parity games on prefix-recognizable graphs. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 68, 6 (2003), 71–84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Byron Cook and Eric Koskinen. 2013. Reasoning about Nondeterminism in Programs. In PLDI. 219–230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Neil T. Dantam, Zachary K. Kingston, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Lydia E. Kavraki. 2016. Incremental Task and Motion Planning: A Constraint-Based Approach. In Robotics: Science and Systems XII, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, June 18 - June 22, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Luca De Alfaro, Thomas Henzinger, and Rupak Majumdar. 2001. Symbolic algorithms for infinite-state games. In CONCUR. Springer, 536–550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. Allen Emerson and Charanjit Jutla. 1991. Tree automata, mu-calculus and determinacy. In FOCS. IEEE, 368–377. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Azadeh Farzan and Zachary Kincaid. 2016. Linear Arithmetic Satisfiability via Strategy Improvement. In IJCAI. 735–743.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Harald Fecher and Michael Huth. 2006. Ranked predicate abstraction for branching time: Complete, incremental, and precise. In ATVA. Springer, 322–336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Harald Fecher and Sharon Shoham. 2011. Local abstraction–refinement for the µ-calculus. STTT 13, 4 (2011), 289–306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jeanne Ferrante and Charles Rackoff. 1975. A decision procedure for the first order theory of real addition with order. SIAM J. Comput. 4, 1 (1975), 69–76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Michael J Fischer and Michael O Rabin. 1974. Super-Exponential Complexity of Presburger Arithmetic. Technical Report. Project MAC Mass. Inst. Of Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Gale and Frank M Stewart. 1953. Infinite games with perfect information. Contributions to the Theory of Games 2 (1953), 245–266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Orna Grumberg, Martin Lange, Martin Leucker, and Sharon Shoham. 2005. Don’t know in the µ-calculus. In VMCAI. 233–249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Orna Grumberg, Martin Lange, Martin Leucker, and Sharon Shoham. 2007. When not losing is better than winning: Abstraction and refinement for the full µ-calculus. Information and Computation 205, 8 (2007), 1130–1148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ashutosh Gupta, Thomas A. Henzinger, Rupak Majumdar, Andrey Rybalchenko, and Ru-Gang Xu. 2008. Proving nontermination. In POPL. 147–158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Arie Gurfinkel and Marsha Chechik. 2006. Why waste a perfectly good abstraction? In TACAS. 212–226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Aidan Harding, Mark Ryan, and Pierre-Yves Schobbens. 2005. A new algorithm for strategy synthesis in LTL games. In TACASs. Springer, 477–492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jaakko Hintikka. 1982. Game-theoretical semantics: insights and prospects. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Notre-Dame, Ind. 23, 2 (1982), 219–241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Antonius J. C. Hurkens, Cor A. J. Hurkens, and Gerhard J. Woeginger. 2011. How Cinderella Won the Bucket Game (and Lived Happily Ever After). Mathematics Magazine 84, 4 (2011), pp. 278–283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Barbara Jobstmann, Andreas Griesmayer, and Roderick Bloem. 2005. Program Repair as a Game. In CAV. 226–238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Viktor Kuncak, Mikaël Mayer, Ruzica Piskac, and Philippe Suter. 2010. Complete functional synthesis. In PLDI. 316–329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Orna Kupferman and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1999. Robust satisfaction. In CONCUR. 383–398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Zohar Manna and Richard Waldinger. 1980. A Deductive Approach to Program Synthesis. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2, 1 (Jan. 1980), 90–121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. David Marker. 2000. Introduction to model theory. Model theory, algebra, and geometry 39 (2000), 15–35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Donald A. Martin. 1975. Borel Determinacy. Annals of Mathematics 102, 2 (1975), 363–371. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Kenneth McMillan. 2006. Lazy abstraction with interpolants. In CAV. 123–136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Kenneth McMillan and Andrey Rybalchenko. 2013. Solving Constrained Horn Clauses using Interpolation. Technical Report. MSR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Nir Piterman, Amir Pnueli, and Yaniv SaâĂŹar. 2006. Synthesis of reactive(1) designs. In VMCAI. 364–380.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Amir Pnueli and Yonit Kesten. 2002. A Deductive Proof System for CTL*. In CONCUR. 24–40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Amir Pnueli and Roni Rosner. 1989. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In POPL. ACM, 179–190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Andrew Reynolds, Morgan Deters, Viktor Kuncak, Cesare Tinelli, and Clark W. Barrett. 2015. Counterexample-Guided Quantifier Instantiation for Synthesis in SMT. In CAV. 198–216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Armando Solar-Lezama, Liviu Tancau, Rastislav Bodík, Sanjit A. Seshia, and Vijay A. Saraswat. 2006. Combinatorial sketching for finite programs. In ASPLOS. 404–415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Saurabh Srivastava, Sumit Gulwani, and Jeffrey S. Foster. 2010. From program verification to program synthesis. In POPL. 313–326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Saurabh Srivastava, Sumit Gulwani, and Jeffrey S. Foster. 2013. Template-based program verification and program synthesis. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15, 5 (01 Oct 2013), 497–518. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Wolfgang Thomas. 1995. On the synthesis of strategies in infinite games. In STACS. 1–13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Martin T. Vechev, Eran Yahav, and Greta Yorsh. 2010. Abstraction-guided synthesis of synchronization. In POPL. 327–338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Igor Walukiewicz. 2001. Pushdown processes: Games and model-checking. Information and computation 164, 2 (2001), 234–263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Strategy synthesis for linear arithmetic games

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!