Finite automata with advice tapes

We define a model of advised computation by finite automata where the advice is provided on a separate tape. We consider several variants of the model where the advice is deterministic or randomized, the input tape head is allowed real-time, one-way, or two-way access, and the automaton is classical or quantum. We prove several separation results among these variants, demonstrate an infinite hierarchy of language classes recognized by automata with increasing advice lengths, and establish the relationships between this and the previously studied ways of providing advice to finite automata.Comment: Corrected typo

Inkdots as advice for finite automata

We examine inkdots placed on the input string as a way of providing advice to finite automata, and establish the relations between this model and the previously studied models of advised finite automata. The existence of an infinite hierarchy of classes of languages that can be recognized with the help of increasing numbers of inkdots as advice is shown. The effects of different forms of advice on the succinctness of the advised machines are examined. We also study randomly placed inkdots as advice to probabilistic finite automata, and demonstrate the superiority of this model over its deterministic version. Even very slowly growing amounts of space can become a resource of meaningful use if the underlying advised model is extended with access to secondary memory, while it is famously known that such small amounts of space are not useful for unadvised one-way Turing machines.Comment: 14 page

Randomization in Non-Uniform Finite Automata

The non-uniform version of Turing machines with an extra advice input tape that depends on the length of the input but not the input itself is a well-studied model in complexity theory. We investigate the same notion of non-uniformity in weaker models, namely one-way finite automata. In particular, we are interested in the power of two-sided bounded-error randomization, and how it compares to determinism and non-determinism. We show that for unlimited advice, randomization is strictly stronger than determinism, and strictly weaker than non-determinism. However, when the advice is restricted to polynomial length, the landscape changes: the expressive power of determinism and randomization does not change, but the power of non-determinism is reduced to the extent that it becomes incomparable with randomization