1 Introduction
Automating the creation of programs is one of the most ambitious goals in computer science. Given a specification, a synthesis algorithm either generates a program that satisfies the specification or determines that no such program exists. The promise of synthesis is to let programmers work on a more abstract level and thus to fundamentally simplify the development of complex software.
Most current synthesis approaches (cf. [15, 5, 3, 14, 7]) are based on the gametheoretic approach, originally introduced by Büchi and Landweber [4], in which the synthesis problem is seen as a twoplayer game with complete observation, played between a system player and an environment player. The goal of the system player is to ensure that the specification is satisfied; the goal of the environment player is to ensure a violation. A winning strategy for the system player defines a control program that reads in the decisions of the environment as its inputs and produces the decisions of the system as its outputs.
A fundamental limitation of the standard gametheoretic formulation is that the environment is a monolithic block. In many applications, however, the environment consists of several distinct entities, and the system must actively communicate with these entities in order to obtain information available in the environment. In this paper, we introduce the synthesis problem in distributed environments. As in the standard approach, we view the synthesis problem as a game between the system and the environment. However, rather than considering the environment as a single player in this game, we consider it as a team consisting of several players that may carry different information. Both the individual environment players and the system player can increase their knowledge by interacting with other players.
The problem is related to, but very different from, the distributed synthesis problem [17]. In distributed synthesis, it is the system that is partitioned into multiple players, corresponding to multiple processes. The key difficulty here is to coordinate the strategies of the system players. In the synthesis problem in distributed environments, it is instead the environment that consists of multiple entities. The key difficulty here is for the system player to synchronize with the right environment players at the right points in time.
We study the synthesis problem in distributed environments in the framework of Petri games [11]. The players of a Petri game are represented as the tokens of a Petri net, partitioned into the system and environment players. Synthesis in distributed environments corresponds to Petri games with a single system token and multiple environment tokens. We assume that the underlying Petri net is bounded, i.e., only a bounded number of players can be generated over the course of a game. For unbounded nets, Petri games are known to be undecidable [11].
The players of a Petri game advance asynchronously except for synchronous interactions, in which players exchange knowledge. We assume that, whenever multiple players interact, they exchange information both truthfully and maximally. This model of knowledge is called causal memory. In this paper, we restrict our synthesis to safety specifications, i.e., the system must prevent the global state from entering certain bad configurations.
We illustrate our setting with a small access control example. Suppose you would like to synthesize a lock controller for a safe that contains sensitive business information. Corporate policy mandates that the safe may only be jointly opened by two employees and that both must previously have confirmed their identity with a corresponding authentication authority. The environment of the lock controller thus consists of four independent players: the employees and and their authenticators and . These entities interact with each other (when authenticates or authenticates ) and with the system player (when or request the safe to open). Since there is no direct interaction between the lock controller and the authenticators, the knowledge about the authentication must be provided to the lock controller by the employees.^{2}^{2}2In Petri games, all players are truthful. Think of the tokens as carriers of information, e.g., a cryptographically secured smart card carried by the employee.
Figure 1 shows how our access control scenario can be modeled as a Petri game. Players are represented by tokens (dots) that move between places (circles) using transitions (squares). The system player, who only moves between places marked in gray, starts in a place indicating that the safe is closed. The game allows her to consult with any employee and remain in her position, or to move to the place to open the safe. The first employee starts in and can either directly move to or can synchronize with her authenticator to move there. In the latter case, the authenticator simultaneously moves to , where she cannot authenticate a second time. When the employee is in , the system player can choose to synchronize with her, moving the employee back to and exchanging all knowledge between the players. In particular, the system player learns whether the employee was authenticated. Afterwards, the employee can attempt to open the safe again, for example to make up for not being authenticated the last time. If the employee has already authenticated, she can alternatively move to and remain there. This possibility forces the locking mechanism to stop waiting for communication once it knows enough and to unlock the safe instead. The second employee is modeled symmetrically. To prevent the system from unlocking prematurely, we declare that all situations in which the safe is open but in which one authenticator has not moved yet as losing for the system.
A winning strategy for this game, as found by our synthesis algorithm, would be to allow communication with and nothing else until (possibly never) the system learns that the employee has authenticated. Then, it allows communication with until the same is true for the second employee. Finally, it opens the safe.
Related work
Synthesis in distributed environments is related to planning under partial observation [18] in that our strategies also combine information gathering and action. However, the classical partialinformation setting does not capture the knowledge of different actors. With causal memory, a player’s knowledge naturally refers to past observations and to the knowledge of other players. Synthesis in distributed environments can be expressed as a control problem [13, 16] for Zielonka’s asynchronous automata [20]. Because this model is very expressive, all known decidability results assume strong restrictions on the communication architecture. Since our environment players are allowed to freely interact with each other and with the system, we cannot apply these results. Petri games were introduced in [11] and there is growing tool support for solving Petri games [10, 9]. The decidability of general Petri games is an open question. The only previously known decision procedure is restricted to the case of a single environment token [11]. In this paper, we solve the complementary case, where the number of environment tokens is unbounded (but there is only one system token). There is also a semialgorithm for solving Petri games [8]. This approach finds finitely representable winning strategies, but does not terminate if no winning strategy exists.
Contributions
Our main technical contribution is an EXPTIME algorithm for deciding bounded Petri games with one system player and an arbitrary number of environment players. Previously, the synthesis problem for Petri games with more than one environment player was open. We provide a matching lower bound to show that our algorithm is asymptotically optimal. If the number of environment players is kept constant, we show that the problem can be solved in polynomial time for up to two environment players whereas it is NPcomplete for three or more environment players. The following table sums up the complexity of deciding bounded Petri games with one system player and environment players, for any :
P  
NPcomplete  
grows with net  EXPTIMEcomplete 
2 Petri nets
We recall notions from the theory of Petri nets as used in [11]. A tuple is called a Petri net if it satisfies the following conditions:

The set of places and the set of transitions are disjoint;

The flow relation is a multiset over , i.e., is a directed, bipartite multigraph with nodes and edges given by . We use the term nodes to refer to places and transitions simultaneously. For nodes , we write to denote ;

The initial marking is a finite multiset over ;

We require finite synchronization and nonempty pre and postconditions: For a node , define the precondition as a multiset such that for all nodes and similarly define the postcondition by . Then, all transitions must satisfy and .
A net is called finite if it contains finitely many nodes.
By convention, the components of a net are named , , and , and similarly for nets named , , , etc. We graphically specify Petri nets as multigraphs, where places are represented by circles, transitions by squares and the flow relation by arrows. In addition, the number of dots in a place reflects the multiplicity of this place in the initial marking. Apart from the gray color of certain places, Fig. 1 shows a Petri net with named places.
A marking of is a finite multiset over . We think of the Petri net as a board on which a finite number of tokens moves between places by using transitions. A marking then represents a certain configuration by listing the current number of tokens on every place. We can move from one marking to another by firing a transition , i.e., by removing tokens in and putting tokens into instead. If the total number of tokens changes in this process, we think of such transitions as generating or consuming tokens. We say that is enabled in a marking if . If this is the case, we can obtain a new marking by firing , and we write to denote that can be constructed from and in this way. A marking is said to be reachable if it can be reached from the initial marking by firing a finite sequence of transitions. We generalize preconditions and postconditions to sets of nodes by defining and analogously for . A Petri net is bounded for a natural number if, for all reachable markings and places , holds. We call a net bounded if it is bounded for some .
We are mainly interested in Petri nets as a model for the causal dependencies between events. These dependencies are made explicit in occurrence nets, certain acyclic nets in which each place has a unique causal history. Before giving their definition, we introduce notation to capture different kinds of causal relationships between nodes. We denote the transitive closure of the support of by and its reflexive and transitive closure by . We call and causally related if or . The causal past of a node is the set . We extend this notion to sets of nodes by setting . Apart from being causally related, two nodes might also be mutually exclusive, i.e., they might be the result of alternative, nondeterministic choices. We say that and are in conflict, for short , if there exists a place , , such that and can be reached following the flow relation from via different outgoing transitions. If and are neither causally related nor in conflict, we call them concurrent.
An occurrence net is a net that satisfies all of the following conditions: the pre and postconditions of transitions are sets, not general multisets; each place has at most one incoming transition; the initial marking is the set ; the inverse flow relation is wellfounded, i.e., if we start from any node and follow the flow relation backwards, we eventually reach a place in the initial marking; no transition is in conflict with itself. Occurrence nets are bounded, i.e., their reachable markings are sets.
We call a maximal set of pairwise concurrent places in an occurrence net a cut. In Appendix B.1, we prove that the finite cuts of an occurrence net are exactly its reachable markings. We further prove that the occurrence nets that we will work with only have finite cuts. Thus, for our purposes, we can use the terms interchangeably (Corollary B.1).
A homomorphism from a Petri net to a Petri net is a function that only maps places to places and transitions to transitions such that, for all , and . is called initial if additionally holds.
An initial branching process of a net is a pair where is an occurrence net and is an initial homomorphism from to such that . Conceptually, a branching process describes a subset of the possible behavior of a net as an occurrence net. If a place or a transition in the original net can be reached on different paths or with different knowledge, the branching process splits up this node. The homomorphism is used to label those multiple instances with the original node in . The additional condition means that the branching process may not split up a transition unnecessarily: For the same precondition, at most one instance of a certain transition can be present in the branching process.
3 Petri games
In a Petri game, we partition the places of a finite Petri net into two disjoint subsets: the system places (represented in gray) and the environment places (represented in white). For convenience, we write for the set of all places of the game . A token on a system place represents a system player, a token on an environment place an environment player. Additionally, a Petri game also identifies a set of bad markings , which the system players need to avoid.^{3}^{3}3This is more general than in [11], where instead of avoiding a set of arbitrary markings, the system tries to avoid all markings that have a nonempty intersection with a set of bad places. [8] also uses arbitrary sets of bad markings. Since the hardness proofs in Theorems 5 and 6 only use bad markings of this shape, this generalization does not increase the computational hardness of our setting. In our complexity analyses in Theorems 5, 6, 6 and in Appendix C.2, we do not commit to a specific input encoding of bad markings such that our results remain valid if a set of bad places is given instead. If the game reaches a marking in , the environment wins; the system wins if this is never the case. Formally, a Petri game is a tuple . We call the underlying net of .
Transitions whose entire precondition belongs to the environment are called purely environmental. Otherwise, we call the transition a system transition.
Since Petri games aim to model the information flow in a system, a system player’s decisions may only depend on information that she has witnessed herself or that she has obtained by communicating with other players. We thus describe strategies of the system as branching processes of the underlying net of the game, where the causal dependencies are made explicit. While the game is played on the underlying net, the strategy keeps track of the current state of the game as well as its causal history. As we show in Lemma B.1 in Appendix B.1, every reachable marking of the branching process corresponds to a reachable marking in the underlying net. The marking in the strategy might have less enabled transitions than the one in the underlying net, which means that the strategy can prevent certain transitions from firing. The game progresses by nondeterministically firing transitions that are allowed by the strategy. No matter which transitions are fired in which order, the system players need to ensure certain properties of the game. Because of this, it is sometimes useful to think of these choices as being made by an adversarial scheduler.
A winning, deadlockavoiding strategy is an initial branching process of the underlying net of the game that satisfies the following four conditions:
 justified refusal

Let be a set of pairwise concurrent places in and be a transition in the underlying net, where but there is no such that and . Then, there must be a place such that .
 safety

For all , .
 determinism

For all and all reachable markings in that contain , there is at most one transition that is enabled in .
 deadlock avoidance

For all we require that, if any transition of the underlying net is enabled in , then some transition in the strategy must be enabled in .
In the above conditions, we extended the notion of system places to the strategy by setting . We similarly define the environment places of the strategy as . To distinguish more clearly between nodes in the strategy and nodes in the underlying net, we always use bold variable names such as or for the latter.
Justified refusal means that a system player influences the course of the game by refusing to take part in certain transitions in her postcondition. Even if every place in contains a token for some , the transition can fire iff, for every place in , the corresponding system player allows this transition. In particular, purely environmental transitions cannot be restricted by the strategy. More precisely, the condition refers to all possible preconditions where a transition could have been added to the strategy, but was not. If no instance of with the right precondition exists so far, there must be a system place in that refuses to take part in any instance of . Note that a system player can only refuse all transitions in the strategy with the label or must allow all of them.
The safety objective requires that the game never reaches a bad marking. Determinism enforces that, from a system player’s perspective, all sources of uncertainty are in the vicinity of an environment player. This does not prevent a system player from allowing multiple transitions, as long as these transitions are enabled in different markings.
Finally, we require the strategy to avoid deadlocks. Without this condition, a strategy might simply refuse to fire any system transition at all. In general, the system prefers to fire less transitions since they might potentially lead to bad markings and since allowing too many of them might cause nondeterminism. The criterion enforces that, whenever no purely environmental transition is enabled in a marking but some system transition is enabled, the strategy must allow one of them in order to keep the game going. This still allows the strategy to enter markings in which no transition is enabled at all. Similarly, a system player may refuse all transitions in her postcondition as long as she knows that the game will always allow another player to move.
4 Reduction to games over finite graphs
We wish to decide whether a bounded Petri game with one system player admits a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy. In case of a positive answer, we also want to obtain a description of such a strategy. Note that the system player’s decisions can be based on an unboundedly growing amount of information. Because of this, it is not at all obvious that the existence of a strategy is decidable and that strategies can be represented in finite space.
In this section and the next, we show that the decision problem is EXPTIMEcomplete in the size of the net. We establish the upper bound through a manyone reduction to a completeobservation game over a finite graph. We consider Petri games with a single system player, i.e., all reachable markings contain exactly one system place, which we denote by . In the cuts of a strategy, we denote the unique system place by .
(E’1)  
(E’2)  
(E’3)  
(X’1)  
(X’2a)  
(X’2b)  
(X’3) 
For a given Petri net with underlying net , Fig. 2 defines the components of the translated graph game if we ignore all colored parts. The set of vertices consists of two disjoint subsets and , which describe the vertices belonging to players 0 and 1, respectively. The game begins in the initial vertex . From a vertex , the current player chooses an outgoing edge in . A play, i.e., a maximal sequence of vertices with for all , is winning for Player 0 if no vertex is an element of the bad vertices . A strategy (for Player 0) is a labeled tree whose root is labeled with . If a node is labeled with a vertex in , its children are labeled with all successor vertices. Otherwise, it has a single child labeled with one particular successor. The strategy is winning if all maximal paths through it are labeled with winning plays. All such games are memoryless determined: If there is any winning strategy, there exists a winning strategy that selects, from any two nodes with the same label, the same successor vertex.
The vertices of the game essentially represent the reachable markings of the Petri game and Player 1 moves between markings by firing enabled transitions. This means that Player 1 plays the role of both the environment and the nondeterminism stemming from different schedulings. Player 0, who represents the system, can only act by refusing to allow some transitions in the postcondition of the single system place in the marking. Since these decisions should not depend on scheduled, purely environmental transitions that the system would not yet know in the Petri game, Player 0 is forced to choose directly after the system player has taken a transition. Similarly to [11], we therefore add a commitment, i.e., a set , to each vertex of the graph game. The commitment keeps track of the set of outgoing transitions of the current system place that the system player allows. Player 0’s vertices are marked with instead of a commitment to denote that she needs to decide on a commitment in the next step (E1). Player 1’s choices are then restricted such that she can fire all purely environmental transitions (E2) but can only fire system transitions that appear in the commitment (E3). The bad vertices correspond to bad markings (X1), nondeterminism (X2a, X2b) and deadlock (X3).
To prove the reduction correct, we need to show that has a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy iff Player 0 has a winning strategy in . For this, we give translations between these types of strategies.
4.1 From Petri game strategies to graph game strategies
Assume that we are given a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy for . We inductively build a strategy for . Whenever we encounter a node labeled with a vertex belonging to Player 0, we choose an outgoing edge, i.e., a suitable commitment.
For any such node, we look at the sequence of labels on the path that leads to it from the root. This sequence is a prefix of a play, which we denote by . Edges of type (E1) in this prefix do not change the marking. All other edges are associated with firing a transition. Starting from the initial cut, we fire preimages of these transitions one after another. If multiple transitions could be responsible for the edge or if multiple preimages are enabled, choose one canonically. For edges of type (E2), such preimages always exist because justified refusal does not allow to restrict purely environmental transitions. In the case of edges of type (E3), we make sure to only include transitions in the commitment if the existence of such preimages is ensured. By consecutively firing such a sequence of transitions, we reach a cut such that . Set and choose the outgoing edge leading to to construct the strategy.
For welldefinedness, it remains to show that, when Player 1 schedules a system transition the next time, a preimage of this transition will be enabled in the cut that corresponds to the node in the strategy. Since, in between, only purely environmental transitions will be fired, will still be part of . The system place has a preimage of in its postcondition by the definition of . Therefore, a preimage enabled in exists by justified refusal.
[] is a winning strategy for Player 0.
Proof sketch (detailed in Appendix b.2).
Consider a node in with the label . As in the construction of the graph game strategy, we canonically fire transitions corresponding to the prefix until we reach a cut such that . Now assume that is a bad vertex. Each kind of bad vertices (X1), (X2a), (X2b) or (X3) translates to a violation of the properties of a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy in , contradiction. Thus, no node is labeled with a bad vertex and the strategy is winning. ∎
4.2 From graph game strategies to Petri game strategies
The converse direction is harder to prove. So far, we have shown that, if the system can win a Petri game with incomplete information, Player 0 can also win a game with full information on the marking graph. This is not surprising. In this step however, we must show that this additional information does not give an advantage to Player 0 that the system does not have. In the construction of , we have already introduced commitments, which prevent Player 0 from using information about the scheduling of purely environmental transitions for her subsequent move. However, Player 0 might still use this information to make her move after the next. If the system player does not learn about the environment transition in her next step, this is an illegal flow of information.
The main idea now is that, while some parts of the graph game strategy do not correspond to a valid information flow in the Petri game, others do. In these latter parts, the strategy contains all necessary decisions to win the Petri game. Conceptually, we need to cut away unreasonable plays from the strategy. Alternatively, we might say that a forbidden information flow only happens if Player 1 does not play in an intelligent way. From Player 1’s point of view, it is dangerous and unnecessary to schedule a purely environmental transition and then schedule a system transition unless the former is needed to enable the latter. If she does so, Player 0 gains potentially useful information, which Player 1 could easily prevent by scheduling the purely environmental transition at a later point, i.e., when it is necessary to enable the next system transition or when a winning situation for Player 1 (bad marking, nondeterminism or deadlock) can be reached without any more moves by Player 0. To make this idea formal, we construct another graph game , which restricts Player 1’s moves to enforce the behavior described above. Then, we can easily show that any winning strategy for translates to a winning strategy for , where Player 1 has fewer options. In a second step, we will translate the strategy from back to a strategy for the Petri game, which will prove the desired equivalence.
The new graph game is defined in Fig. 2 by taking into account the colored parts. The vertices of are extended by a third component, a responsibility multiset over . This multiset tracks the information generated by firing transitions. At any point in the Petri game, a subset of the cut such that together carries the information about all fired transitions. This notion is made precise in Lemma B.4 in Appendix B.4. After a transition has been fired, every token in its postcondition carries the information about the causal pasts of all participating tokens and about the fired transition itself. For this reason, when an edge of type (E’2) fires a purely environmental transition , the tokens in are subtracted from , and Player 1 chooses an arbitrary token , which will carry the information to the system player. Edges of type (E’3) deal with similarly in that they also subtract the precondition from and instead add one element of the postcondition, namely the system place. In contrast to , these edges only allow system transitions if the responsibility multiset is included in the precondition, i.e., if the system player would directly learn about all previously scheduled transitions by taking this system transition.
[] If there is a winning strategy for , there exists a winning strategy for .
Proof sketch (detailed in Appendix b.3).
only reduces Player 1’s options. ∎
We now translate a winning strategy for back into a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy for the Petri game. Without loss of generality, we assume to be memoryless. We traverse the strategy tree in breadthfirst order and inductively build the Petri game strategy . Simultaneously, we map each node of the tree to a nonempty set of cuts. We call these cuts the associated cuts of the node. These cuts can be reached from by firing preimages of transitions corresponding to the edges of types (E’2) and (E’3) on the path from the root to this node. In particular, every such cut will satisfy , where is the marking found in the label of the node.
We begin by mapping the root of the tree to a single cut , i.e., a fresh set of places such that . Then, we traverse and distinguish between the different kinds of edges in the graph game by which the vertex of the currently visited node has been reached from its predecessor.

(E’1): Do not modify and map the new node to the same cuts as its parent.

(E’2) or (E’3): Let be one of the cuts associated with the parent node. Let be a transition that could have been used in the definition of (E’2) or (E’3) to justify the existence of the edge. Finally, let be any subset of with . Such a subset always exists because is enabled in . If it already exists, let be a transition with and . Else, create a new such transition and a fresh set of places as its postcondition such that . Choose such that . We map the new node to all cuts that can be constructed from suitable , and in this way.
We need to show that is a strategy. First, we can easily see that the construction ensures all requirements of an occurrence net. Furthermore, is an initial branching process because is an initial homomorphism and because we only add a new transition if no other transition with the same label and precondition exists.
Before we can prove that satisfies the four axioms of a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy, we need to show that the responsibility multiset construction works as intended. First, we show that the construction prevents illegal information flows. Whenever the system player moves in the graph game, she directly learns about all previously scheduled transitions. Formally, nodes labeled with player0 vertices are only mapped to cuts that are the last known cuts of their respective system place . The last known cut of a place is defined as . In the terminology of [6], this cut is the mapping cut of , i.e., the cut reached by firing all transitions in the past of . The last known cut of has the special property that, for every cut with , the last known cut of lies in (Lemma B.4 in Appendix B.4).
Lemma .
Let a node in be labeled with a vertex belonging to Player 0 and let be one of its associated cuts. Then, .
Proof in Appendix b.4.
∎
Second, we need to show that the responsibility multiset construction does not overly restrict the scheduling. For certain schedulings of purely environmental transitions, the responsibility multiset prevents a system transition from being fired even though it is enabled and in the commitment. If, since the Player 0’s last move, Player 1 had skipped firing all transitions that do not help to enable this system transition, the transition could be fired. Therefore, the Petri game strategy contains all system transitions wherever they are not refused. This is formally stated and proved in Lemma B.5 in Appendix B.5.
[safety] Let be a cut in . Then, .
Proof.
Consider the node for which was inserted into the strategy. This node must be labeled with a vertex and must have as one of its associated cuts by Lemma 4.2. Since , there is a sequence of purely environmental transitions leading from to , by Lemma B.1 in Appendix B.1. Thus, from ’s unique successor, we can follow a corresponding sequence of type(E’2) edges to a node with as one of its associated cuts. If were a bad marking, would be labeled with a bad vertex of type (X’1). Since is a winning strategy, this is not the case. ∎
For the proofs of justified refusal (Lemma B.6), determinism (Lemma B.6) and deadlock avoidance (Lemma B.6), we refer the reader to Appendix B.6. As an immediate consequence, is a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy, which concludes the claimed equivalence:
If has a winning strategy for Player 0, there exists a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy for .
5 Synthesis in distributed environments is EXPTIMEcomplete
For fixed , bounded Petri games with one system player and an arbitrary number of environment players can be decided in exponential time.
Proof.
Our reduction allows to decide such Petri games in exponential time: The number of vertices in is bounded by and its local structure can be computed efficiently. Since graph games with such safety winning conditions can be solved in linear time in the size of the game [1, pp. 78–79], this requires exponential time in the size of the Petri game.
[] Deciding bounded Petri games with one system player and an arbitrary number of environment players is EXPTIMEhard for any .
Proof sketch (detailed in Appendix b.7).
We show hardness through a reduction from the EXPTIMEcomplete combinatorial game from [19]. This reduction is similar to the one given in [11] for the fragment with one environment player. In , two players, and , take turns in switching the truth values of a finite set of boolean variables, one at a time. Alternatively, they are allowed to pass. The players operate on disjoint subsets of the variables. Initially, the variables have predefined values. If, at a certain point, a formula over the variables becomes satisfied, wins; else, wins.
For an instance of this game, we build a Petri game such that there is a winning, deadlockavoiding strategy iff has a winning strategy in the original game. Without loss of generality, let be given in negation normal form. An example for the reduction is illustrated in Fig. 4 in Appendix B.7. Each variable is represented by an environment token moving between two places, indicating the variable’s truth value. An additional environment token keeps track of the current turn. If it is ’s turn, this token synchronizes with one of the environment variables and switches its position. If it is ’s turn, the token first informs the single system token of the previous moves and then enables the transitions for switching a system variable, from which the system token chooses one.
Instead of letting a player move, the turn token can permanently freeze the variables and prove that is satisfied. For this, we have an additional environment token for every subformula, each with two places. The turn token can move these tokens to their second place to prove that the subformula is satisfied. For literals, the turn token needs to synchronize with the respective variable in the correct place. For disjunctions, it must synchronize with the token of one of the subformulas, which must have been proved before. For conjunctions, synchronization with both subformula tokens is required. The bad markings are exactly those in which the entire formula is proved. This game is bounded, thus bounded. ∎
6 Sparse Petri games
The nets produced by our EXPTIMEhardness reduction contain a high number of environment tokens. Because of this, the number of reachable markings grows exponentially and computational cost with it. To study other sources of algorithmic hardness, we analyze the complexity of the problem for a fixed maximum number of environment players. Then, we can bound the number of reachable markings by the polynomial instead of by . For a fixed , the problem is in NP: We nondeterministically guess a commitment for every vertex and verify in polynomial time that no bad vertices are reachable.[] For a fixed , deciding Petri games with one system player and environment players is NPcomplete.
Proof sketch (detailed in Appendix b.8).
The upper bound has already been established. Show the lower bound by a reduction from the boolean satisfiability problem with 3clauses (3SAT). For a given instance, construct a Petri game with three environment players and a single system player. For every clause, the single system player must allow at least one transition corresponding to a satisfied literal in the clause. Deadlock avoidance forces the system player to allow at least one such transition per clause. Nondeterminism prevents the system player from allowing two transitions corresponding to complementary literals. ∎
[] Petri games with one system player and at most two environment players can be decided in polynomial time.
Proof sketch (detailed in Appendix b.9).
We adapt the algorithm in Appendix C.1, which evaluates commitments symbolically with a SAT solver. Due to the special structure of the SAT instances generated, we can add pre and postprocessing steps such that the SAT queries only contain 2clauses. Since 2SAT can be solved in polynomial time [2], this yields a polynomialtime decision procedure. ∎
7 Conclusions
In this paper, we have developed algorithms for the synthesis of reactive systems in distributed environments. We have studied the problem in the setting of Petri games. Previously, the decidability of Petri games was only known for nondistributed environments, i.e., for games with a single environment token [11]. Our algorithms solve Petri games with one system token and an arbitrary number of environment tokens. We have shown that the synthesis problem can be solved in polynomial time for nets with up to two environment tokens. For an arbitrary but fixed number of three or more environment tokens, the problem is NPcomplete. If the number of environment tokens grows with the size of the net, the problem is EXPTIMEcomplete.
An intriguing question for future work is whether our results, which scale to an arbitrary number of environment tokens, can be combined with the results of [11], which scale to an arbitrary number of system tokens. This would allow us to synthesize “distributed systems in distributed environments.” With the algorithm presented in this paper, we can already synthesize individual components in such distributed systems, by treating the other components as adversarial (cf. [12]). The approach of [11] would additionally allow us to analyze the cooperation between the system components.
References

[1]
Krzysztof R. Apt and Erich Grädel.
Lectures in game theory for computer scientists
. Cambridge University Press, 2011.  [2] Bengt Aspvall, Michael F. Plass, and Robert Endre Tarjan. A lineartime algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified boolean formulas. Information Processing Letters, 8(3):121–123, 1979. doi:10.1016/00200190(79)900024.
 [3] Aaron Bohy, Véronique Bruyère, Emmanuel Filiot, Naiyong Jin, and JeanFrançois Raskin. Acacia+, a tool for LTL synthesis. In Proceedings of CAV, volume 7358 of LNCS, pages 652–657. Springer, 2012. doi:10.1007/9783642314247_45.
 [4] J. Richard Buchi and Lawrence H. Landweber. Solving sequential conditions by finitestate strategies. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 138:295–311, 1969. doi:10.2307/1994916.
 [5] Rüdiger Ehlers. Unbeast: Symbolic bounded synthesis. In Proceedings of TACAS, volume 6605 of LNCS, pages 272–275. Springer, 2011. doi:10.1007/9783642198359_25.
 [6] Javier Esparza. Model checking using net unfoldings. Science of Computer Programming, 23(2–3):151–195, 1994. doi:10.1016/01676423(94)000190.
 [7] Peter Faymonville, Bernd Finkbeiner, Markus N. Rabe, and Leander Tentrup. Encodings of bounded synthesis. In Axel Legay and Tiziana Margaria, editors, Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems  23rd International Conference, TACAS 2017, Proceedings, Part I, volume 10205 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 354–370, 2017. doi:10.1007/9783662545775_20.
 [8] Bernd Finkbeiner. Bounded synthesis for Petri games. In Roland Meyer, André Platzer, and Heike Wehrheim, editors, Correct System Design – Symposium in Honor of ErnstRüdiger Olderog on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, Proceedings, volume 9360 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 223–237. Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/9783319235066_15.
 [9] Bernd Finkbeiner, Manuel Gieseking, Jesko HeckingHarbusch, and ErnstRüdiger Olderog. Symbolic vs. bounded synthesis for Petri games. In Dana Fisman and Swen Jacobs, editors, 6th Workshop on Synthesis (SYNT 2017). EPTCS, 2017. URL: https://www.react.unisaarland.de/publications/FGHO17.pdf.
 [10] Bernd Finkbeiner, Manuel Gieseking, and ErnstRüdiger Olderog. Adam: Causalitybased synthesis of distributed systems. In Daniel Kroening and Corina S. Pasareanu, editors, Computer Aided Verification  27th International Conference, CAV 2015, Proceedings, Part I, volume 9206 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 433–439. Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/9783319216904_25.
 [11] Bernd Finkbeiner and ErnstRüdiger Olderog. Petri games: Synthesis of distributed systems with causal memory. Information and Computation, 253:181–203, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ic.2016.07.006.
 [12] Bernd Finkbeiner and Sven Schewe. Semiautomatic distributed synthesis. In Doron A. Peled and YihKuen Tsay, editors, Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, Third International Symposium, ATVA 2005, Proceedings, volume 3707 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 263–277. Springer, 2005. doi:10.1007/11562948_21.
 [13] Paul Gastin, Benjamin Lerman, and Marc Zeitoun. Distributed games with causal memory are decidable for seriesparallel systems. In Kamal Lodaya and Meena Mahajan, editors, FSTTCS 2004: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, 24th International Conference, Proceedings, volume 3328 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 275–286. Springer, 2004. doi:10.1007/9783540305385_23.
 [14] Swen Jacobs, Roderick Bloem, Romain Brenguier, Ayrat Khalimov, Felix Klein, Robert Könighofer, Jens Kreber, Alexander Legg, Nina Narodytska, Guillermo A. Pérez, JeanFrançois Raskin, Leonid Ryzhyk, Ocan Sankur, Martina Seidl, Leander Tentrup, and Adam Walker. The 3rd reactive synthesis competition (SYNTCOMP 2016): Benchmarks, participants & results. In Proceedings Fifth Workshop on Synthesis, SYNT@CAV 2016, Toronto, Canada, July 1718, 2016., volume 229 of EPTCS, pages 149–177, 2016. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.229.12.
 [15] Barbara Jobstmann, Stefan J. Galler, Martin Weiglhofer, and Roderick Bloem. Anzu: A tool for property synthesis. In Proceedings of CAV, volume 4590 of LNCS, pages 258–262. Springer, 2007. doi:10.1007/9783540733683_29.
 [16] Anca Muscholl and Igor Walukiewicz. Distributed synthesis for acyclic architectures. In Venkatesh Raman and S. P. Suresh, editors, 34th International Conference on Foundation of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, FSTTCS 2014, volume 29 of LIPIcs, pages 639–651. Schloss Dagstuhl  LeibnizZentrum für Informatik, 2014. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2014.639.
 [17] Amir Pnueli and Roni Rosner. Distributed reactive systems are hard to synthesize. In 31st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Volume II, pages 746–757. IEEE Computer Society, 1990. doi:10.1109/FSCS.1990.89597.
 [18] Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence – A Modern Approach. Pearson, 3rd edition, 2009. Pages 138–146.
 [19] Larry J. Stockmeyer and Ashok K. Chandra. Provably difficult combinatorial games. SIAM Journal on Computing, 8(2):151–174, 1979. doi:10.1137/0208013.
 [20] Wieslaw Zielonka. Notes on finite asynchronous automata. RAIRO – Theoretical Informatics and Applications – Informatique Théorique et Applications, 21(2):99–135, 1987.
Appendix A Multisets
A multiset over a set is a function from to the nonnegative integers. For an element of , let denote that . The set of all such elements is called the support of . We identify valued multisets with their support. A multiset over is finite if its support is finite. The cardinality of such a finite multiset is defined as . Otherwise, we write . For multisets over , holds iff for all . We define the difference of two multisets such that for all . Similarly, the disjoint union of multisets satisfies for all . For a finite set of multisets, let denote . If is a function from a set to a set and is a multiset over , we define to be the multiset over defined by .
Appendix B Detailed proofs
b.1 Relating cuts and markings
Let be a cut in an occurrence net , in which is enabled. Then, is also a cut. In particular, is a set and .
Proof.
Since is a set and is a set, is a set if we can show that these two are disjoint. Let be any element of . If there were a element of and , it would hold that . This would contradict the fact that both are elements of a cut. Because of this, we can reason about sets and set operations in the following.
It holds that every two distinct places in are concurrent: We distinguish different cases depending on whether the nodes lie in or in and depending on what could prevent them from being concurrent.

If , they are concurrent because is a cut.

Assume ; . Since places in occurrence nets have at most one incoming transition, would be in selfconflict, contradiction.

Assume ; . Then, and there is such that or , both contradicting the assumption that and are elements of a cut.

Assume ; . Since , . Thus, holds, which contradicts the wellfoundedness of .

Assume ; . Let . Then, , contradicting the assumption .

Assume ; . Since , . Because , there is such that , which contradicts the assumption that .
All other cases follow by symmetry.
Furthermore, is a maximal set of concurrent places because every place concurrent to would also be concurrent to , but not be an element of it. This would contradict the maximality of the cut . ∎
All reachable markings in an occurrence net are cuts.
Proof.
By induction over the number of transitions needed to reach the marking from the initial one. If is the initial marking, the proposition directly holds: By definition, the initial marking is a set. Because no place in it has an incoming transition, no two places can be causally related or in conflict. Since following the inverse flow relation from any node will always lead us to an initial place, no other place is concurrent to . Thus, is a cut. The induction step holds by Lemma B.1. ∎
For every occurrence net and every place , is finite.
Proof.
In an occurrence net, the indegree of every node is finite because all places have at most one incoming transition and because the size of the precondition of a transition is finite by definition.^{4}^{4}4Note that the postcondition of a place can be infinite. Thus, the same is not true about outdegrees. can be seen as the nodes of the reachable fragment of with inverted flow starting from and, with this relation, the smaller graph has finite outdegree. Furthermore, all paths in this graph are finite since is wellfounded. Thus, by König’s lemma, is finite as well. ∎
Let be an occurrence net and be a finite set of pairwise concurrent places. Then, there is a reachable marking such that .
Proof.
Prove by induction on , which is finite according to Lemma B.1.
If , then , which proves the claim. Else, . Choose such that there is no with and choose any . Choosing such a is possible because is finite and is wellfounded. Then, is a finite set. All distinct in are concurrent:

All are concurrent by assumption.

Assume ; . Then would be in selfconflict, contradiction.

Assume ; . Then, , contradiction.

Assume ; . If , would not be wellfounded. Otherwise, can be reached from both directly and via another transition, thus is in selfconflict, contradiction.

Assume ; . If , there would be a such that , contradiction. Otherwise, , contradiction.

Assume ; . , contradiction.
Furthermore, : First, . Second, an element cannot be in but also not in , thus not in . The set inclusion is strict because the right hand side includes while the left hand side does not.
By the induction hypothesis, there is a reachable marking such that . In particular, . Then, such that . ∎
For every reachable marking in an initial branching process of a net , there is a reachable marking in such that .
Proof.
By induction on the number of fired transitions needed to reach from . If is the initial marking, because is an initial homomorphism.
For the induction step, assume that there are markings and a transition such that . Further assume that there is such that . Then, is enabled in because . Choose the reachable marking such that .
Comments
There are no comments yet.