@inproceedings{3350,
abstract = {A controller for a discrete game with ω-regular objectives requires attention if, intuitively, it requires measuring the state and switching from the current control action. Minimum attention controllers are preferable in modern shared implementations of cyber-physical systems because they produce the least burden on system resources such as processor time or communication bandwidth. We give algorithms to compute minimum attention controllers for ω-regular objectives in imperfect information discrete two-player games. We show a polynomial-time reduction from minimum attention controller synthesis to synthesis of controllers for mean-payoff parity objectives in games of incomplete information. This gives an optimal EXPTIME-complete synthesis algorithm. We show that the minimum attention controller problem is decidable for infinite state systems with finite bisimulation quotients. In particular, the problem is decidable for timed and rectangular automata.},
author = {Chatterjee, Krishnendu and Majumdar, Ritankar},
editor = {Fahrenberg, Uli and Tripakis, Stavros},
location = {Aalborg, Denmark},
pages = {145 -- 159},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {{Minimum attention controller synthesis for omega regular objectives}},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-24310-3_11},
volume = {6919},
year = {2011},
}
@inproceedings{3351,
abstract = {In two-player games on graph, the players construct an infinite path through the game graph and get a reward computed by a payoff function over infinite paths. Over weighted graphs, the typical and most studied payoff functions compute the limit-average or the discounted sum of the rewards along the path. Besides their simple definition, these two payoff functions enjoy the property that memoryless optimal strategies always exist. In an attempt to construct other simple payoff functions, we define a class of payoff functions which compute an (infinite) weighted average of the rewards. This new class contains both the limit-average and the discounted sum functions, and we show that they are the only members of this class which induce memoryless optimal strategies, showing that there is essentially no other simple payoff functions.},
author = {Chatterjee, Krishnendu and Doyen, Laurent and Singh, Rohit},
editor = {Owe, Olaf and Steffen, Martin and Telle, Jan Arne},
location = {Oslo, Norway},
pages = {148 -- 159},
publisher = {Springer},
title = {{On memoryless quantitative objectives}},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-22953-4_13},
volume = {6914},
year = {2011},
}
@article{3352,
abstract = {Exploring the connection of biology with reactive systems to better understand living systems.},
author = {Fisher, Jasmin and Harel, David and Henzinger, Thomas A},
journal = {Communications of the ACM},
number = {10},
pages = {72 -- 82},
publisher = {ACM},
title = {{Biology as reactivity}},
doi = {10.1145/2001269.2001289},
volume = {54},
year = {2011},
}
@article{3353,
abstract = {Compositional theories are crucial when designing large and complex systems from smaller components. In this work we propose such a theory for synchronous concurrent systems. Our approach follows so-called interface theories, which use game-theoretic interpretations of composition and refinement. These are appropriate for systems with distinct inputs and outputs, and explicit conditions on inputs that must be enforced during composition. Our interfaces model systems that execute in an infinite sequence of synchronous rounds. At each round, a contract must be satisfied. The contract is simply a relation specifying the set of valid input/output pairs. Interfaces can be composed by parallel, serial or feedback composition. A refinement relation between interfaces is defined, and shown to have two main properties: (1) it is preserved by composition, and (2) it is equivalent to substitutability, namely, the ability to replace an interface by another one in any context. Shared refinement and abstraction operators, corresponding to greatest lower and least upper bounds with respect to refinement, are also defined. Input-complete interfaces, that impose no restrictions on inputs, and deterministic interfaces, that produce a unique output for any legal input, are discussed as special cases, and an interesting duality between the two classes is exposed. A number of illustrative examples are provided, as well as algorithms to compute compositions, check refinement, and so on, for finite-state interfaces.},
author = {Tripakis, Stavros and Lickly, Ben and Henzinger, Thomas A and Lee, Edward},
journal = {ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)},
number = {4},
publisher = {ACM},
title = {{A theory of synchronous relational interfaces}},
doi = {10.1145/1985342.1985345},
volume = {33},
year = {2011},
}
@article{3354,
abstract = {We consider two-player games played on a finite state space for an infinite number of rounds. The games are concurrent: in each round, the two players (player 1 and player 2) choose their moves independently and simultaneously; the current state and the two moves determine the successor state. We consider ω-regular winning conditions specified as parity objectives. Both players are allowed to use randomization when choosing their moves. We study the computation of the limit-winning set of states, consisting of the states where the sup-inf value of the game for player 1 is 1: in other words, a state is limit-winning if player 1 can ensure a probability of winning arbitrarily close to 1. We show that the limit-winning set can be computed in O(n2d+2) time, where n is the size of the game structure and 2d is the number of priorities (or colors). The membership problem of whether a state belongs to the limit-winning set can be decided in NP ∩ coNP. While this complexity is the same as for the simpler class of turn-based parity games, where in each state only one of the two players has a choice of moves, our algorithms are considerably more involved than those for turn-based games. This is because concurrent games do not satisfy two of the most fundamental properties of turn-based parity games. First, in concurrent games limit-winning strategies require randomization; and second, they require infinite memory.},
author = {Chatterjee, Krishnendu and De Alfaro, Luca and Henzinger, Thomas A},
journal = {ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)},
number = {4},
publisher = {ACM},
title = {{Qualitative concurrent parity games}},
doi = {10.1145/1970398.1970404},
volume = {12},
year = {2011},
}