Good for Games Automata: From Nondeterminism to Alternation
Abstract
A word automaton recognizing a language is good for games (GFG) if its composition with any game with winning condition preserves the game's winner. While all deterministic automata are GFG, some nondeterministic automata are not. There are various other properties that are used in the literature for defining that a nondeterministic automaton is GFG, including "history-deterministic", "compliant with some letter game", "good for trees", and "good for composition with other automata". The equivalence of these properties has not been formally shown. We generalize all of these definitions to alternating automata and show their equivalence. We further show that alternating GFG automata are as expressive as deterministic automata with the same acceptance conditions and indices. We then show that alternating GFG automata over finite words, and weak automata over infinite words, are not more succinct than deterministic automata, and that determinizing B\"uchi and co-B\"uchi alternating GFG automata involves a state blow-up. We leave open the question of whether alternating GFG automata of stronger acceptance conditions allow for doubly-exponential succinctness compared to deterministic automata.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.1906.11624,
title = {Good for Games Automata: From Nondeterminism to Alternation},
author = {Udi Boker and Karoliina Lehtinen},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11624},
year = {2019}
}
Comments
Full version of a paper of the same name accepted fr publication at the 30th International Conference on Concurrency Theory