We introduce and study perspective games, which model multi-agent systems in which agents can view only the parts of the system that they own. As in standard multi-player turn-based games, the vertices of the game graph are partitioned among the players. Starting from an initial vertex, the players jointly generate a computation, with each player deciding the successor vertex whenever the generated computation reaches a vertex she owns. A perspective strategy for a player depends only on the history of visits in her vertices. Thus, unlike observation-based models of partial visibility, where uncertainty is longitudinal - players partially observe all vertices in the history, uncertainty in the perspective model is transverse - players fully observe part of the vertices in the history. Perspective games are not determined, and we study the problem of deciding whether a player has a winning perspective strategy. In the pure setting, we show that the problem is EXPTIME-complete for objectives given by a deterministic or universal parity automaton over an alphabet that labels the vertices of the game, and is 2EXPTIME-complete for LTL objectives. Accordingly, so is the model-checking complexity of Perspective-ATL*- an extension of ATL* with path quantification that captures perspective strategies. In all cases, the complexity in the size of the graph is polynomial - exponentially easier than games with observation-based partial visibility. In the probabilistic setting, we show that deciding whether a player has an almost-winning randomized perspective strategy is undecidable. Finally, we study perspective games with objectives given by ω-regular conditions over the set of vertices. In particular, we compare the power of perspective and memoryless strategies and show, for example, that while the generalized-Büchi and the Streett objectives do not admit memoryless strategies, generalized Büehl admits perspective strategies, and Streett does not. We also describe a fragment of LTL that admits perspective strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kupferman et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: