Determinising Parity Automata

Parity word automata and their determinisation play an important role in automata and game theory. We discuss a determinisation procedure for nondeterministic parity automata through deterministic Rabin to deterministic parity automata. We prove that the intermediate determinisation to Rabin automata is optimal. We show that the resulting determinisation to parity automata is optimal up to a small constant. Moreover, the lower bound refers to the more liberal Streett acceptance. We thus show that determinisation to Streett would not lead to better bounds than determinisation to parity. As a side-result, this optimality extends to the determinisation of B\"uchi automata

Rabin vs. Streett Automata

The Rabin and Streett acceptance conditions are dual. Accordingly, deterministic Rabin and Streett automata are dual. Yet, when adding nondeterminsim, the picture changes dramatically. In fact, the state blowup involved in translations between Rabin and Streett automata is a longstanding open problem, having an exponential gap between the known lower and upper bounds. We resolve the problem, showing that the translation of Streett to Rabin automata involves a state blowup in $Theta(n^2)$, whereas in the other direction, the translations of both deterministic and nondeterministic Rabin automata to nondeterministic Streett automata involve a state blowup in $2^{Theta(n)}$. Analyzing this substantial difference between the two directions, we get to the conclusion that when studying translations between automata, one should not only consider the state blowup, but also the emph{size} blowup, where the latter takes into account all of the automaton elements. More precisely, the size of an automaton is defined to be the maximum of the alphabet length, the number of states, the number of transitions, and the acceptance condition length (index). Indeed, size-wise, the results are opposite. That is, the translation of Rabin to Streett involves a size blowup in $Theta(n^2)$ and of Streett to Rabin in $2^{Theta(n)}$. The core difference between state blowup and size blowup stems from the tradeoff between the index and the number of states. (Recall that the index of Rabin and Streett automata might be exponential in the number of states.) We continue with resolving the open problem of translating deterministic Rabin and Streett automata to the weaker types of deterministic co-B"uchi and B"uchi automata, respectively. We show that the state blowup involved in these translations, when possible, is in $2^{Theta(n)}$, whereas the size blowup is in $Theta(n^2)$

Parity and generalised Büchi automata - determinisation and complementation

In this thesis, we study the problems of determinisation and complementation of finite automata on infinite words. We focus on two classes of automata that occur naturally: generalised Büchi automata and nondeterministic parity automata. Generalised Büchi and parity automata occur naturally in model-checking, realisability checking and synthesis procedures. We first review a tight determinisation procedure for Büchi automata, which uses a simplification of Safra trees called history trees. As Büchi automata are special types of both generalised Büchi and parity automata, we adjust the data structure to arrive at suitably tight determinisation constructions for both generalised Büchi and parity automata. As the parity condition describes combinations of Büchi and CoBüchi conditions, instead of immediately modifying the data structure to handle parity automata, we arrive at a suitable data structure by first looking at a special case, Rabin automata with one accepting pair. One pair Rabin automata correspond to parity automata with three priorities and serve as a starting point to modify the structures that result from Büchi determinisation: we then nest these structures to reflect the standard parity condition and describe a direct determinisation construction. The generalised Büchi condition is characterised by an accepting family with 'k' accepting sets. It is easy to extend classic determinisation constructions to handle generalised Büchi automata by incorporating the degeneralization algorithm in the determinisation construction. We extend the tight Büchi construction to do exactly this. Our determinisation constructions go to deterministic Rabin automata. It is known that one can determinise to the more convenient parity condition by incorporating the standard Latest Appearance Record construction in the determinisation procedure. We determinise to parity automata using this technique. We prove lower bounds on these constructions. In the case of determinisation to Rabin automata, our constructions are tight to the state. In the case of determinisation to parity, there is a constant factor ≤ 1.5 between upper and lower bounds reducing to optimal(to the state) in the case of Büchi and 1-pair Rabin. We also reconnect tight determinisation and complementation and provide constructions for complementing generalised Büchi and parity automata by starting withour data structure for determinisation. We introduce suitable data structures for the complementation procedures based on the data structure used for determinisation. We prove lower bounds for both constructions that are tight upto an O(n) factor where 'n' is the number of states of the nondeterministic automaton that is complemented

Lazy Probabilistic Model Checking without Determinisation

The bottleneck in the quantitative analysis of Markov chains and Markov decision processes against specifications given in LTL or as some form of nondeterministic B\"uchi automata is the inclusion of a determinisation step of the automaton under consideration. In this paper, we show that full determinisation can be avoided: subset and breakpoint constructions suffice. We have implemented our approach---both explicit and symbolic versions---in a prototype tool. Our experiments show that our prototype can compete with mature tools like PRISM.Comment: 38 pages. Updated version for introducing the following changes: - general improvement on paper presentation; - extension of the approach to avoid full determinisation; - added proofs for such an extension; - added case studies; - updated old case studies to reflect the added extensio