Strategy Representation by Decision Trees in Reactive Synthesis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Graph games played by two players over finite-state graphs are central in many problems in computer science. In particular, graph games with ω-regular winning conditions, specified as parity objectives, which can express properties such as safety, liveness, fairness, are the basic framework for verification and synthesis of reactive systems. The decisions for a player at various states of the graph game are represented as strategies. While the algorithmic problem for solving graph games with parity objectives has been widely studied, the most prominent data-structure for strategy representation in graph games has been binary decision diagrams (BDDs). However, due to the bit-level representation, BDDs do not retain the inherent flavor of the decisions of strategies, and are notoriously hard to minimize to obtain succinct representation. In this work we propose decision trees for strategy representation in graph games. Decision trees retain the flavor of decisions of strategies and allow entropy-based minimization to obtain succinct trees. However, decision trees work in settings (e.g., probabilistic models) where errors are allowed, and overfitting of data is typically avoided. In contrast, for strategies in graph games no error is allowed, and the decision tree must represent the entire strategy. We develop new techniques to extend decision trees to overcome the above obstacles, while retaining the entropy-based techniques to obtain succinct trees. We have implemented our techniques to extend the existing decision tree solvers. We present experimental results for problems in reactive synthesis to show that decision trees provide a much more efficient data-structure for strategy representation as compared to BDDs.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 3.
5 papers.
- 2021dtControl 2.0: Explainable Strategy Representation via Decision Tree Learning Steered by Expertscited by 14
- 2024Bisimulation Learningcited by 5
- 2025Taming Infinity one Chunk at a Time: Concisely Represented Strategies in One-Counter MDPscited by 1
- 2025Explaining Control Policies through Predicate Decision Diagramscited by 1
- 2025Simplicity Lies in the Eye of the Beholder: A Strategic Perspective on Controllers in Reactive Synthesiscited by 0
- 2025Simplicity Lies in the Eye of the Beholder: A Strategic Perspective on Controllers in Reactive Synthesis4 Sep 2025
- 2025Explaining Control Policies through Predicate Decision Diagrams9 Mar 2025
- 2025Taming Infinity one Chunk at a Time: Concisely Represented Strategies in One-Counter MDPs2 Mar 2025
- 2024Bisimulation Learning24 May 2024
- 2021dtControl 2.0: Explainable Strategy Representation via Decision Tree Learning Steered by Experts15 Jan 2021