Game Solving Under Fair Transitions
Irmak Saglam
Max Planck Institute for Software Systems
04 Sep 2026, 2:30 pm - 3:30 pm
Kaiserslautern building G26, room 111
SWS Student Defense Talks - Thesis Proposal
Two-player games on finite graphs are the central algorithmic model of the
reactive synthesis problem:
av{automatically} constructing a controller that
enforces a given temporal specification against every behavior of its
environment.
av{A faithful game model is, however, delicate: an overly
powerful environment makes winning impossible, an overly weak one yields
controllers that fail in practice.} \emph{Fairness assumptions} address this
modeling challenge by concisely capturing realistic constraints on the
environment, such as ``a request enabled infinitely often is granted infinitely
often.'' The most general such notion, ...
Two-player games on finite graphs are the central algorithmic model of the
reactive synthesis problem:
av{automatically} constructing a controller that
enforces a given temporal specification against every behavior of its
environment.
av{A faithful game model is, however, delicate: an overly
powerful environment makes winning impossible, an overly weak one yields
controllers that fail in practice.} \emph{Fairness assumptions} address this
modeling challenge by concisely capturing realistic constraints on the
environment, such as ``a request enabled infinitely often is granted infinitely
often.'' The most general such notion, \emph{strong fairness}, is encoded by a
Streett winning condition and makes game solving intractable. This thesis
studies a structurally restricted, yet practically expressive subclass:
\emph{strong transition fairness}, which attaches fairness to designated
\emph{fair edges} of the game graph. Recent work has shown that for ùù-regular
winning conditions such as B\"uchi, Rabin, and parity, strong transition
fairness comes essentially \emph{for free}: fair games can be solved with the
same algorithmic effort as their non-fair counterparts.
This thesis investigates how far fairness stays free, and what its boundaries
are. We start by saving a foundational result: the published equivalence
between fairness and randomness turns out to rest on a false clause; we refute
that clause and prove the surviving equivalence for all Muller objectives.
The phenomenon extends further. Fairness may constrain both players at once, as
environment assumption and system obligation: we introduce the first framework
for such \emph{doubly-fair} games, give a determined semantics \dfsc{for all ùù
-regular objectives} and\dfsc{, for parity,} a polynomial reduction to standard
parity games. Beyond ùù-regular objectives, fair mean-payoff and energy games
stay in the pseudo-polynomial regime, though one variant is, surprisingly, not
determined; throughout, we settle the strategy complexity of both players.
"Fairness for free'' ends twice. It ends at the arena. A complete
classification of \emph{viability games} over valence systems, of independent
interest, shows that fairness strictly shrinks what stays decidable: a game
solvable in exponential time without fairness becomes undecidable with it. And
it ends at the format. Fairness attached to a \emph{group} of edges makes game
solving NP-hard already for reachability, and tractability is not preserved
under products.
We show that fairness is "for free'' not only on paper but also in practice:
symbolic fixpoints, Zielonka's recursion, and progress measures all carry over
to their fair counterparts with negligible overhead. The fair Zielonka solver
matches its classical counterpart in experiments; the new progress measures
drive the first incremental, data-driven synthesis framework for unknown
stochastic systems, with speedups approaching two orders of magnitude.
Read more