We study two-player concurrent games on finite-state graphs played for an infinite number of rounds, where 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. The objectives are ω-regular winning conditions specified as parity objectives. We consider the qualitative analysis problems: the computation of the almost-sure and limit-sure winning set of states, where player 1 can ensure to win with probability 1 and with probability arbitrarily close to 1, respectively. In general the almost-sure and limit-sure winning strategies require both infinite-memory as well as infinite-precision (to describe probabilities). While the qualitative analysis problem for concurrent parity games with infinite-memory, infinite-precision randomized strategies was studied before, we study the bounded-rationality problem for qualitative analysis of concurrent parity games, where the strategy set for player 1 is restricted to bounded-resource strategies. In terms of precision, strategies can be deterministic, uniform, finite-precision, or infinite-precision; and in terms of memory, strategies can be memoryless, finite-memory, or infinite-memory. We present a precise and complete characterization of the qualitative winning sets for all combinations of classes of strategies. In particular, we show that uniform memoryless strategies are as powerful as finite-precision infinite-memory strategies, and infinite-precision memoryless strategies are as powerful as infinite-precision finite-memory strategies. We show that the winning sets can be computed in O(n~(2d+3)) time, where n is the size of the game structure and 2d is the number of priorities (or colors), and our algorithms are symbolic. The membership problem of whether a state belongs to a winning set can be decided in NP ∩ coNP. Our symbolic algorithms are based on a characterization of the winning sets as μ-calculus formulas, however, our μ-calculus formulas are crucially different from the ones for concurrent parity games (without bounded rationality); and our memoryless witness strategy constructions are significantly different from the infinite-memory witness strategy constructions for concurrent parity games.
展开▼
