Document Open Access Logo

An Updated Survey of Bidding Games on Graphs (Invited Talk)

Authors Guy Avni, Thomas A. Henzinger

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.MFCS.2022.3.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.59 MB
  • 6 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Guy Avni
  • University of Haifa, Israel
Thomas A. Henzinger
  • IST Austria, Austria

Funding

  • Avni, Guy: Work partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation, ISF grant agreement no 1679/21.
  • Henzinger, Thomas A.: This work was supported in part by the ERC-2020-AdG 101020093.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all our collaborators Milad Aghajohari, Ventsislav Chonev, Rasmus Ibsen-Jensen, Ismäel Jecker, Petr Novotný, Josef Tkadlec, and Đorđe Žikelić; we hope the collaboration was as fun and meaningful for you as it was for us.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Guy Avni and Thomas A. Henzinger. An Updated Survey of Bidding Games on Graphs (Invited Talk). In 47th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 241, pp. 3:1-3:6, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2022.3

Abstract

A graph game is a two-player zero-sum game in which the players move a token throughout a graph to produce an infinite path, which determines the winner or payoff of the game. In bidding games, both players have budgets, and in each turn, we hold an "auction" (bidding) to determine which player moves the token. In this survey, we consider several bidding mechanisms and their effect on the properties of the game. Specifically, bidding games, and in particular bidding games of infinite duration, have an intriguing equivalence with random-turn games in which in each turn, the player who moves is chosen randomly. We summarize how minor changes in the bidding mechanism lead to unexpected differences in the equivalence with random-turn games.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Solution concepts in game theory
  • Theory of computation → Formal languages and automata theory
Keywords
  • Bidding games
  • Richman bidding
  • poorman bidding
  • mean-payoff
  • parity

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Related Versions

References

  1. R. Alur, T. A. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM, 49(5):672-713, 2002. Google Scholar
  2. K.R. Apt and E. Grädel. Lectures in Game Theory for Computer Scientists. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. G. Avni and T. A. Henzinger. A survey of bidding games on graphs. In Proc. 31st CONCUR, volume 171 of LIPIcs, pages 2:1-2:21. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020. Google Scholar
  4. G. Avni, T. A. Henzinger, and V. Chonev. Infinite-duration bidding games. J. ACM, 66(4):31:1-31:29, 2019. Google Scholar
  5. G. Avni, T. A. Henzinger, and R. Ibsen-Jensen. Infinite-duration poorman-bidding games. In Proc. 14th WINE, volume 11316 of LNCS, pages 21-36. Springer, 2018. Google Scholar
  6. G. Avni, R. Ibsen-Jensen, and J. Tkadlec. All-pay bidding games on graphs. In Proc. 34th AAAI, pages 1798-1805. AAAI Press, 2020. Google Scholar
  7. G. Avni, I. Jecker, and Đ. Žikelić. Infinite-duration all-pay bidding games. In Proc. 32nd SODA, pages 617-636, 2021. Google Scholar
  8. C. Calude, S. Jain, B. Khoussainov, W. Li, and F. Stephan. Deciding parity games in quasipolynomial time. In Proc. 49th STOC, 2017. Google Scholar
  9. A. Condon. The complexity of stochastic games. Inf. Comput., 96(2):203-224, 1992. Google Scholar
  10. A. E. Emerson, C. S. Jutla, and P. A. Sistla. On model-checking for fragments of μ-calculus. In Proc. 5th CAV, pages 385-396, 1993. Google Scholar
  11. M. Jurdzinski. Deciding the winner in parity games is in up ∩ co-up. Information Processing Letters, 68(3):119-124, 1998. Google Scholar
  12. A. J. Lazarus, D. E. Loeb, J. G. Propp, W. R. Stromquist, and D. H. Ullman. Combinatorial games under auction play. Games and Economic Behavior, 27(2):229-264, 1999. Google Scholar
  13. A. J. Lazarus, D. E. Loeb, J. G. Propp, and D. Ullman. Richman games. Games of No Chance, 29:439-449, 1996. Google Scholar
  14. N. Nisan and A. Ronen. Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 35(1-2):166-196, 2001. Google Scholar
  15. Y. Peres, O. Schramm, S. Sheffield, and D. B. Wilson. Tug-of-war and the infinity laplacian. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 22:167-210, 2009. Google Scholar
  16. A. Pnueli and R. Rosner. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In Proc. 16th POPL, pages 179-190, 1989. Google Scholar
  17. M.O. Rabin. Decidability of second order theories and automata on infinite trees. Transaction of the AMS, 141:1-35, 1969. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact