The 2-Token Theorem: Recognising History-Deterministic Parity Automata Efficiently
Karoliina Lehtinen, Aditya Prakash
Abstract
History-determinism is a restricted notion of nondeterminism in automata, where the nondeterminism can be successfully resolved based solely on the prefix read so far. Historydeterministic automata still allow for exponential succinctness in automata over infinite words compared to deterministic automata (Kuperberg and Skrzypczak, 2015) , allow for canonical forms unlike deterministic automata (Abu Radi and Kupferman, 2019 and 2020; Ehlers and Schewe, 2022) , and retain some of the algorithmic properties of deterministic automata, for example for reactive synthesis (Henzinger and Piterman, 2006; Ehlers and Khalimov, 2024). Despite the topic of history-determinism having received a lot of attention over the last decade, the complexity of deciding whether a parity automaton is history-deterministic has, up till now, remained open. We show that history-determinism for a parity automaton with a fixed parity index can be checked in PTIME, thus improving upon the naive EXPTIME upper bound of Henzinger and Piterman that has stood since 2006. More precisely, we show that the so-called 2-token game, which can be solved in PTIME for parity automata with a fixed parity index, characterises history-determinism for parity automata. This game was introduced by Bagnol and Kuperberg in 2018, who showed that to decide if a Büchi automaton is history-determinism, it suffices to find the winner of the 2-token game on it. They conjectured that this 2-token game based characterisation extends to parity automata. Boker, Kuperberg, Lehtinen, and Skrzypcak showed in 2020 that this conjecture holds for coBüchi automata as well. We prove Bagnol and Kuperberg's conjecture that the winner of the 2-token game characterises history-determinism on parity automata. As consequences of our result, we also get the 2-token game based characterisation for history-determinism in alternating parity automata and ω-regular automata with any acceptance condition, thus yielding efficient algorithms for deciding their history-determinism. Additionally, we also obtain an efficient algorithm for deciding the good-enough-synthesis (Almagor and Kupferman, 2020) for specifications given by a deterministic parity automata.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 59fe5394-e044-4ce9-b707-6631396e8ec8Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on2
Related papers
- Layered Automata: A Canonical Model for Automata over Infinite WordsAntonio Casares, Christof Löding, Igor WalukiewiczLICS 2026
- Positional ω-regular languagesAntonio Casares, Pierre OhlmannLICS 2024 · 1 citation
- Minimal History-Deterministic Co-Büchi Automata: Congruences and Passive LearningChristof Löding, Igor WalukiewiczLICS 2025 · 3 citations
- Accelerating Markov Chain Model Checking: Good-for-Games Meets Unambiguous AutomataYong Li, Soumyajit Paul, Sven Schewe, Qiyi TangCAV 2025
- On Indexing and Compressing Finite AutomataNicola Cotumaccio, Nicola PrezzaSODA 2021 · 26 citations
