A regularity test for pushdown machines

It is possible to test a deterministic pushdown machine to determine if the language it recognizes is regular

Decision Problems for Deterministic Pushdown Automata on Infinite Words

The article surveys some decidability results for DPDAs on infinite words (omega-DPDA). We summarize some recent results on the decidability of the regularity and the equivalence problem for the class of weak omega-DPDAs. Furthermore, we present some new results on the parity index problem for omega-DPDAs. For the specification of a parity condition, the states of the omega-DPDA are assigned priorities (natural numbers), and a run is accepting if the highest priority that appears infinitely often during a run is even. The basic simplification question asks whether one can determine the minimal number of priorities that are needed to accept the language of a given omega-DPDA. We provide some decidability results on variations of this question for some classes of omega-DPDAs.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527

Beyond Language Equivalence on Visibly Pushdown Automata

We study (bi)simulation-like preorder/equivalence checking on the class of visibly pushdown automata and its natural subclasses visibly BPA (Basic Process Algebra) and visibly one-counter automata. We describe generic methods for proving complexity upper and lower bounds for a number of studied preorders and equivalences like simulation, completed simulation, ready simulation, 2-nested simulation preorders/equivalences and bisimulation equivalence. Our main results are that all the mentioned equivalences and preorders are EXPTIME-complete on visibly pushdown automata, PSPACE-complete on visibly one-counter automata and P-complete on visibly BPA. Our PSPACE lower bound for visibly one-counter automata improves also the previously known DP-hardness results for ordinary one-counter automata and one-counter nets. Finally, we study regularity checking problems for visibly pushdown automata and show that they can be decided in polynomial time.Comment: Final version of paper, accepted by LMC

Reachability in Higher-Order-Counters

Higher-order counter automata (\HOCS) can be either seen as a restriction of higher-order pushdown automata (\HOPS) to a unary stack alphabet, or as an extension of counter automata to higher levels. We distinguish two principal kinds of \HOCS: those that can test whether the topmost counter value is zero and those which cannot. We show that control-state reachability for level $k$ \HOCS with $0$-test is complete for \mbox{$(k-2)$}-fold exponential space; leaving out the $0$-test leads to completeness for \mbox{$(k-2)$}-fold exponential time. Restricting \HOCS (without $0$-test) to level $2$, we prove that global (forward or backward) reachability analysis is \PTIME-complete. This enhances the known result for pushdown systems which are subsumed by level $2$ \HOCS without $0$-test. We transfer our results to the formal language setting. Assuming that \PTIME \subsetneq \PSPACE \subsetneq \mathbf{EXPTIME}, we apply proof ideas of Engelfriet and conclude that the hierarchies of languages of \HOPS and of \HOCS form strictly interleaving hierarchies. Interestingly, Engelfriet's constructions also allow to conclude immediately that the hierarchy of collapsible pushdown languages is strict level-by-level due to the existing complexity results for reachability on collapsible pushdown graphs. This answers an open question independently asked by Parys and by Kobayashi.Comment: Version with Full Proofs of a paper that appears at MFCS 201

Multi-Head Finite Automata: Characterizations, Concepts and Open Problems

Multi-head finite automata were introduced in (Rabin, 1964) and (Rosenberg, 1966). Since that time, a vast literature on computational and descriptional complexity issues on multi-head finite automata documenting the importance of these devices has been developed. Although multi-head finite automata are a simple concept, their computational behavior can be already very complex and leads to undecidable or even non-semi-decidable problems on these devices such as, for example, emptiness, finiteness, universality, equivalence, etc. These strong negative results trigger the study of subclasses and alternative characterizations of multi-head finite automata for a better understanding of the nature of non-recursive trade-offs and, thus, the borderline between decidable and undecidable problems. In the present paper, we tour a fragment of this literature

Equivalence-Checking on Infinite-State Systems: Techniques and Results

The paper presents a selection of recently developed and/or used techniques for equivalence-checking on infinite-state systems, and an up-to-date overview of existing results (as of September 2004)