How good is a strategy in a game with Nature?

DOI10.1109/LICS.2015.62zbMATH Open1401.68169arXiv2002.09942MaRDI QIDQ4635840FDOQ4635840

Authors: Arnaud Carayol, Olivier Serre 

Publication date: 23 April 2018

Published in: 2015 30th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: We consider games with two antagonistic players --- 'Elo"ise (modelling a program) and Ab'elard (modelling a byzantine environment) --- and a third, unpredictable and uncontrollable player, that we call Nature. Motivated by the fact that the usual probabilistic semantics very quickly leads to undecidability when considering either infinite game graphs or imperfect-information, we propose two alternative semantics that leads to decidability where the probabilistic one fails: one based on counting and one based on topology.

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09942

Recommendations

• How Good Is a Strategy in a Game with Nature?
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3916056
• Natural strategic ability
• Randomness for free
• Randomness for free

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Other game-theoretic models (91A40) Games involving topology, set theory, or logic (91A44) Semantics in the theory of computing (68Q55)

Cited In (7)

• How Good Is a Strategy in a Game with Nature?
• Quantifying Bounds in Strategy Logic
• Counting branches in trees using games
• Fair adversaries and randomization in two-player games
• Baire category quantifier in monadic second order logic
• Monadic Second Order Logic with Measure and Category Quantifiers
• Title not available (Why is that?)

This page was built for publication: How good is a strategy in a game with Nature?

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4635840)