Good-for-games ω-Pushdown Automata

@article{Lehtinen2022GoodforgamesA,
  title={Good-for-games $\omega$-Pushdown Automata},
  author={Karoliina Lehtinen and Martin Zimmermann},
  journal={Log. Methods Comput. Sci.},
  year={2022},
  volume={18}
}
We introduce good-for-games ω-pushdown automata (ω-GFG-PDA). These are automata whose nondeterminism can be resolved based on the input processed so far. Good-for-gameness enables automata to be composed with games, trees, and other automata, applications which otherwise require deterministic automata. Our main results are that ω-GFG-PDA are more expressive than deterministic ωpushdown automata and that solving infinite games with winning conditions specified by ω-GFG-PDA is EXPTIME-complete… 
1 Citations

Figures and Tables from this paper

Good-for-games ω-Pushdown Automata
TLDR
These are automata whose nondeterminism can be resolved based on the run constructed thus far and it follows that the universality problem for ω-GFG-PDA is in EXPTIME as well.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 32 REFERENCES
A Bit of Nondeterminism Makes Pushdown Automata Expressive and Succinct
TLDR
It is proved that GFG-PDA recognise more languages than deterministic PDA (DPDA) but not all context-free languages (CFL) and this class is orthogonal to unambiguous CFL.
History Determinism vs. Good for Gameness in Quantitative Automata
TLDR
It is shown that good-for-games automata are central for “global” (classical) synthesis, while “local’ (good-enough) synthesis reduces to deciding whether a nondeterministic automaton is history deterministic.
Good-for-games ω-Pushdown Automata
TLDR
These are automata whose nondeterminism can be resolved based on the run constructed thus far and it follows that the universality problem for ω-GFG-PDA is in EXPTIME as well.
Logic for ω-pushdown
  • automata. Inf. Comput.,
  • 2020
Good for Games Automata: From Nondeterminism to Alternation
TLDR
It is shown that alternating G FG automata are as expressive as deterministic automata with the same acceptance conditions and indices, and that determinizing Buchi and co-Buchi alternating GFG automata involves a $2^{\Theta(n)}$ state blow-up.
Büchi Good-for-Games Automata Are Efficiently Recognizable
Good-for-Games (GFG) automata offer a compromise between deterministic and nondetermin-istic automata. They can resolve nondeterministic choices in a step-by-step fashion, without needing any
On Büchi One-Counter Automata
TLDR
The first result shows that decidability no longer holds when moving from finite words to infinite words and proves that already the equivalence problem for deterministic Buchi one-counter automata is undecidable.
On Determinisation of Good-for-Games Automata
TLDR
The main results of this work answer the question whether parity GFG automata actually present an improvement in terms of state-complexity the number of states compared to the deterministic ones.
Simplification Problems for Deterministic Pushdown Automata on Infinite Words
TLDR
Some decidability results concerning simplification problems for DPDAs on infinite words (ω-DPDAs) are surveyed and some insights are given on the equivalence problem for a subclass of ω-DPDA.
...
1
2
3
4
...