game semantics and the complexity of interactionpbl/galop2016/aschierislides.pdf · game semantics...
TRANSCRIPT
Game Semantics and the Complexity ofInteraction
Federico Aschieri
Institute of Discrete Mathematics and GeometryTechnische Universitat Wien
Eindhoven, 2 April 2016
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
k is the height of the proof tree
22..2k
²r+1
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
k is the height of the proof tree
22..2k
²r+1
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
k is the height of the proof tree
22..2k
²r+1
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
Figure: New York
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
Worst case: World Trade Center, 546 meters
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
Better worst-case analysis
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
Γ,∃x B,B[t/x](t first-order term)
Γ,∃x B
Γ,B[a/x](a eigenvariable)
Γ,∀x B
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
Γ,∃x B,B[t/x](t first-order term)
Γ,∃x B
Γ,B[a/x](a eigenvariable)
Γ,∀x B
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∃x ∀y ∃z P(x ,y ,z)
∀y ∃z P(t3,y ,z)
∃z P(t3,a3,z)
a3
t3
∀y ∃z P(t2,y ,z)
∃z P(t2,a2,z)
a2
t2
∀y ∃z P(t1,y ,z)
∃z P(t1,a1,z)
P(t1,a1, t4)
t4
a1
t1
Order: t1 a1 t2 a2 t3 a3 t4
Winning: P(t1,a1, t4)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∃x ∀y ∃z P(x ,y ,z)
∀y ∃z P(t3,y ,z)
∃z P(t3,a3,z)
a3
t3
∀y ∃z P(t2,y ,z)
∃z P(t2,a2,z)
a2
t2
∀y ∃z P(t1,y ,z)
∃z P(t1,a1,z)
P(t1,a1, t4)
t4
a1
t1
Order: t1 a1 t2 a2 t3 a3 t4
Winning: P(t1,a1, t4)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∃x ∀y ∃z P(x ,y ,z)
∀y ∃z P(t3,y ,z)
∃z P(t3,a3,z)
a3
t3
∀y ∃z P(t2,y ,z)
∃z P(t2,a2,z)
a2
t2
∀y ∃z P(t1,y ,z)
∃z P(t1,a1,z)
P(t1,a1, t4)
t4
a1
t1
Order: t1 a1 t2 a2 t3 a3 t4
Winning: P(t1,a1, t4)Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∀x ∃y ∀z ¬P(x ,y ,z)
∃y ∀z ¬P(b,y ,z)
∀z ¬P(b,u3,z)
¬P(b,u3,b3)
b3
u3
∀z ¬P(b,u2,z)
¬P(b,u2,b2)
b2
u2
∀z ¬P(b,u1,z)
¬P(b,u1,b1)
b1
u1
b
Order: b u1 b1 u2 b2 u3 b3
Winning: ¬P(b,u1,b1) ∨P(b,u2,b2) ∨P(b,u3,b3)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∀x ∃y ∀z ¬P(x ,y ,z)
∃y ∀z ¬P(b,y ,z)
∀z ¬P(b,u3,z)
¬P(b,u3,b3)
b3
u3
∀z ¬P(b,u2,z)
¬P(b,u2,b2)
b2
u2
∀z ¬P(b,u1,z)
¬P(b,u1,b1)
b1
u1
b
Order: b u1 b1 u2 b2 u3 b3
Winning: ¬P(b,u1,b1) ∨P(b,u2,b2) ∨P(b,u3,b3)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∀x ∃y ∀z ¬P(x ,y ,z)
∃y ∀z ¬P(b,y ,z)
∀z ¬P(b,u3,z)
¬P(b,u3,b3)
b3
u3
∀z ¬P(b,u2,z)
¬P(b,u2,b2)
b2
u2
∀z ¬P(b,u1,z)
¬P(b,u1,b1)
b1
u1
b
Order: b u1 b1 u2 b2 u3 b3
Winning: ¬P(b,u1,b1) ∨P(b,u2,b2) ∨P(b,u3,b3)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∃x ∀y ∃z P(x ,y ,z)
∀y ∃z P(t3,y ,z)
∃z P(t3,a3,z)
a3
t3
∀y ∃z P(t2,y ,z)
∃z P(t2,a2,z)
a2
t2
∀y ∃z P(t1,y ,z)
∃z P(t1,a1,z)
P(t1,a1, t4)
t4
a1
t1
Order: t1 a1 t2 a2 t3 a3 t4
∗ x ∶= t1 y ∶= a1 x ∶= t2 y ∶= a2 x ∶= t3 y ∶= a3 z ∶= t4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∃x ∀y ∃z P(x ,y ,z)
∀y ∃z P(t3,y ,z)
∃z P(t3,a3,z)
a3
t3
∀y ∃z P(t2,y ,z)
∃z P(t2,a2,z)
a2
t2
∀y ∃z P(t1,y ,z)
∃z P(t1,a1,z)
P(t1,a1, t4)
t4
a1
t1
Order: t1 a1 t2 a2 t3 a3 t4
∗ x ∶= t1 y ∶= a1 x ∶= t2 y ∶= a2 x ∶= t3 y ∶= a3 z ∶= t4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∀x ∃y ∀z ¬P(x ,y ,z)
∃y ∀z ¬P(b,y ,z)
∀z ¬P(b,u3,z)
¬P(b,u3,b3)
b3
u3
∀z ¬P(b,u2,z)
¬P(b,u2,b2)
b2
u2
∀z ¬P(b,u1,z)
¬P(b,u1,b1)
b1
u1
b
Order: b a1 u1 b1 u2 b2 u3 b3
∗ x ∶= b y ∶= u1 z ∶= b1 y ∶= u2 z ∶= b2 y ∶= u3
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Expansion Tree Strategies
∀x ∃y ∀z ¬P(x ,y ,z)
∃y ∀z ¬P(b,y ,z)
∀z ¬P(b,u3,z)
¬P(b,u3,b3)
b3
u3
∀z ¬P(b,u2,z)
¬P(b,u2,b2)
b2
u2
∀z ¬P(b,u1,z)
¬P(b,u1,b1)
b1
u1
b
Order: b a1 u1 b1 u2 b2 u3 b3
∗ x ∶= b y ∶= u1 z ∶= b1 y ∶= u2 z ∶= b2 y ∶= u3
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
b is minimum among the backtracking levels of the expansiontrees for A and A�
22..2k
²b+1
1 ≤ b ≤ r !
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
b is minimum among the backtracking levels of the expansiontrees for A and A�
22..2k
²b+1
1 ≤ b ≤ r !
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
b is minimum among the backtracking levels of the expansiontrees for A and A�
22..2k
²b+1
1 ≤ b ≤ r !
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Complexity of Cut-Elimination
⋮
Γ,A⋮
Γ,A�cut
Γ
r is the height of A as formula tree
b is minimum among the backtracking levels of the expansiontrees for A and A�
22..2k
²b+1
1 ≤ b ≤ r !
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Logic
Coquand: A Semantics of Evidence for Classical Arithmetic(1991, 1995)
Herbelin: correspondence between plays and cut-elimination(1995)
Coquand: notion of backtracking level 1 (1991)
Berardi-de’Liguoro: notion of backtracking level n ∈ N (2009)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Logic
Coquand: A Semantics of Evidence for Classical Arithmetic(1991, 1995)
Herbelin: correspondence between plays and cut-elimination(1995)
Coquand: notion of backtracking level 1 (1991)
Berardi-de’Liguoro: notion of backtracking level n ∈ N (2009)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Logic
Coquand: A Semantics of Evidence for Classical Arithmetic(1991, 1995)
Herbelin: correspondence between plays and cut-elimination(1995)
Coquand: notion of backtracking level 1 (1991)
Berardi-de’Liguoro: notion of backtracking level n ∈ N (2009)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Logic
Coquand: A Semantics of Evidence for Classical Arithmetic(1991, 1995)
Herbelin: correspondence between plays and cut-elimination(1995)
Coquand: notion of backtracking level 1 (1991)
Berardi-de’Liguoro: notion of backtracking level n ∈ N (2009)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Computer Science
Hyland-Ong: Full Abstraction for PCF (2000)
Danos-Herbelin-Regnier: Correspondence between plays andlinear head reduction (1996)
Clairambault: Complexity analysis of interaction, re-obtainingby game semantics the known bounds (2011)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Computer Science
Hyland-Ong: Full Abstraction for PCF (2000)
Danos-Herbelin-Regnier: Correspondence between plays andlinear head reduction (1996)
Clairambault: Complexity analysis of interaction, re-obtainingby game semantics the known bounds (2011)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Game Semantics and Computer Science
Hyland-Ong: Full Abstraction for PCF (2000)
Danos-Herbelin-Regnier: Correspondence between plays andlinear head reduction (1996)
Clairambault: Complexity analysis of interaction, re-obtainingby game semantics the known bounds (2011)
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
An arena is a structure A = (M,⊢, λ, I).
M: set of moves. ⊢: binary justification relation between moves.
λ: the turn function M → {Opponent ,Player}
Play: a justified sequence of moves with alternating labels
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
An arena is a structure A = (M,⊢, λ, I).
M: set of moves. ⊢: binary justification relation between moves.
λ: the turn function M → {Opponent ,Player}
Play: a justified sequence of moves with alternating labels
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
An arena is a structure A = (M,⊢, λ, I).
M: set of moves. ⊢: binary justification relation between moves.
λ: the turn function M → {Opponent ,Player}
Play: a justified sequence of moves with alternating labels
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
An arena is a structure A = (M,⊢, λ, I).
M: set of moves. ⊢: binary justification relation between moves.
λ: the turn function M → {Opponent ,Player}
Play: a justified sequence of moves with alternating labels
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
An arena is a structure A = (M,⊢, λ, I).
M: set of moves. ⊢: binary justification relation between moves.
λ: the turn function M → {Opponent ,Player}
Play: a justified sequence of moves with alternating labels
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
An arena is a structure A = (M,⊢, λ, I).
M: set of moves. ⊢: binary justification relation between moves.
λ: the turn function M → {Opponent ,Player}
Play: a justified sequence of moves with alternating labels
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Arenas
∗ e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nc6 e5 d6
The plays on the board are now:
∗1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6
∗1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.e5
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Views
● ○z . . . ●z . . . ○3 . . . ●3 ○2 . . . ●2 ○1 . . . ●1
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4
View: ●1 ○2 ●3 ○4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Views
● ○z . . . ●z . . . ○3 . . . ●3 ○2 . . . ●2 ○1 . . . ●1
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4
View: ●1 ○2 ●3 ○4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Views
● ○z . . . ●z . . . ○3 . . . ●3 ○2 . . . ●2 ○1 . . . ●1
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4
View: ●1 ○2 ●3 ○4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Strategies
A strategy for Player is a set σ of even length plays closed byeven length prefixes.s a ∈ σ means that σ suggests to play a as next move in theplay s.
A strategy for Opponent is a set τ of odd length plays closed byodd length prefixes.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Strategies
A strategy for Player is a set σ of even length plays closed byeven length prefixes.s a ∈ σ means that σ suggests to play a as next move in theplay s.
A strategy for Opponent is a set τ of odd length plays closed byodd length prefixes.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Bounded Strategies
A strategy is bounded by k ∈ N if every play in it is of the shape
● ○z . . . ●z . . . ○i . . . ●i . . . ○2 . . . ●2 ○1 . . . ●1 ○
with 2z ≤ k
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Interactions Between Strategies
Let σ and τ be respectively a strategy for Player and a strategyfor Opponent over the arena A.
σ ⋆ τ
=
{s m ∣ (λ(m) = P Ô⇒ s m ∈ σ ∧ s ∈ τ)}
∪
{s m ∣ (λ(m) = O Ô⇒ s m ∈ τ ∧ s ∈ σ)}
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Interactions Between Strategies
Let σ and τ be respectively a strategy for Player and a strategyfor Opponent over the arena A.
σ ⋆ τ
=
{s m ∣ (λ(m) = P Ô⇒ s m ∈ σ ∧ s ∈ τ)}
∪
{s m ∣ (λ(m) = O Ô⇒ s m ∈ τ ∧ s ∈ σ)}
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Crossing edges:
●1 . . . ●2 . . . ○1 . . . ○2
Mind change about a mind change
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Crossing edges:
●1 . . . ●2 . . . ○1 . . . ○2
Mind change about a mind change
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
An edge is active if all edges crossing it are inactive
An edge is inactive if it is crossed by an active edge
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4 ●5
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
An edge is active if all edges crossing it are inactive
An edge is inactive if it is crossed by an active edge
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4 ●5
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
An edge is active if all edges crossing it are inactive
An edge is inactive if it is crossed by an active edge
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4 ●5
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
An edge e1 is inactived by an edge e2
e1◁e2
if e1 is active immediately before e2 is played and e1 is crossedby e2
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4
The edge from ○3 is inactivated by the edge from ○4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
An edge e1 is inactived by an edge e2
e1◁e2
if e1 is active immediately before e2 is played and e1 is crossedby e2
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4
The edge from ○3 is inactivated by the edge from ○4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
An edge e1 is inactived by an edge e2
e1◁e2
if e1 is active immediately before e2 is played and e1 is crossedby e2
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4
The edge from ○3 is inactivated by the edge from ○4
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Backtracking level of a player p in play: the length of the longestchain of edges
e1◁e2◁ . . . ◁en
such that en is played by p
Backtracking level of a play: the maximum among thebacktracking levels of the players
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4 ●5 ○5
Backtracking level 2
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Backtracking level of a player p in play: the length of the longestchain of edges
e1◁e2◁ . . . ◁en
such that en is played by p
Backtracking level of a play: the maximum among thebacktracking levels of the players
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4 ●5 ○5
Backtracking level 2
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Backtracking level of a player p in play: the length of the longestchain of edges
e1◁e2◁ . . . ◁en
such that en is played by p
Backtracking level of a play: the maximum among thebacktracking levels of the players
●1 ○1 ●2 ○2 ●3 ○3 ●4 ○4 ●5 ○5
Backtracking level 2
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Backtracking level of a strategy σ: the greatest among thebacktracking levels of the views of the plays in σ.
∗ x ∶= t1 y ∶= a1 x ∶= t2 y ∶= a2 x ∶= t3 y ∶= a3 z ∶= t4
Backtracking level 2
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Berardi-de’Liguoro Backtracking Level
Backtracking level of a strategy σ: the greatest among thebacktracking levels of the views of the plays in σ.
∗ x ∶= t1 y ∶= a1 x ∶= t2 y ∶= a2 x ∶= t3 y ∶= a3 z ∶= t4
Backtracking level 2
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Backtracking Levels Interaction
TheoremSuppose σ is a Player bounded strategy of backtracking level n.Suppose τ is an Opponent bounded strategy of backtrackinglevel m.Then for every s ∈ σ ⋆ τ , Player has in s backtracking level lessthan or equal to n and Opponent has in s backtracking levelless than or equal to m.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Min Backtracking Theorem
TheoremSuppose σ is a Player strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level 1.Suppose τ is an Opponent strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level m.Then for every s ∈ σ ⋆ τ , the length of s is less than
2k(log k)⋅2
Backtracking level 1 : Excluded Middle for formulas with 1quantifier.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Min Backtracking Theorem
TheoremSuppose σ is a Player strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level 1.Suppose τ is an Opponent strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level m.Then for every s ∈ σ ⋆ τ , the length of s is less than
2k(log k)⋅2
Backtracking level 1 : Excluded Middle for formulas with 1quantifier.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Min Backtracking Theorem
TheoremSuppose σ is a Player strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level 2.Suppose τ is an Opponent strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level m.Then for every s ∈ σ ⋆ τ , the length of s is less than
22k(log k)⋅2
Backtracking level 2 : Excluded Middle for formulas with 2quantifiers.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Min Backtracking Theorem
TheoremSuppose σ is a Player strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level 2.Suppose τ is an Opponent strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level m.Then for every s ∈ σ ⋆ τ , the length of s is less than
22k(log k)⋅2
Backtracking level 2 : Excluded Middle for formulas with 2quantifiers.
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction
Min Backtracking Theorem
TheoremSuppose σ is a Player strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level n.Suppose τ is an Opponent strategy bounded by k and ofbacktracking level m.Suppose b = min(n,m,d −2), where d is the depth of the arena.Then for every s ∈ σ ⋆ τ , the length of s is less than
22..2k(log k)⋅2
´¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¸¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¶b+1
Federico Aschieri Game Semantics and the Complexity of Interaction