<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/"
         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
         xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
<ListRecords>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"
           xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"
           xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
           xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
           xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
   	<dc:title>Qualitative concurrent parity games</dc:title>
   	<dc:creator>Chatterjee, Krishnendu ; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4561-241X</dc:creator>
   	<dc:creator>De Alfaro, Luca</dc:creator>
   	<dc:creator>Henzinger, Thomas A ; https://orcid.org/0000−0002−2985−7724</dc:creator>
   	<dc:description>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.</dc:description>
   	<dc:publisher>ACM</dc:publisher>
   	<dc:date>2011</dc:date>
   	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
   	<dc:type>doc-type:Article</dc:type>
   	<dc:type>Article</dc:type>
   	<dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1</dc:type>
   	<dc:identifier>https://research-explorer.ista.ac.at/record/3354</dc:identifier>
   	<dc:source>Chatterjee K, De Alfaro L, Henzinger TA. Qualitative concurrent parity games. &lt;i&gt;ACM Transactions on Computational Logic&lt;/i&gt;. 2011;12(4). doi:&lt;a href=&quot;https://doi.org/10.1145/1970398.1970404&quot;&gt;10.1145/1970398.1970404&lt;/a&gt;</dc:source>
   	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
   	<dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1145/1970398.1970404</dc:relation>
   	<dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/wos/000296202300006</dc:relation>
   	<dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>
</ListRecords>
</OAI-PMH>
