Translation from Classical Two-Way Automata to Pebble Two-Way Automata

We study the relation between the standard two-way automata and more powerful devices, namely, two-way finite automata with an additional "pebble" movable along the input tape. Similarly as in the case of the classical two-way machines, it is not known whether there exists a polynomial trade-off, in the number of states, between the nondeterministic and deterministic pebble two-way automata. However, we show that these two machine models are not independent: if there exists a polynomial trade-off for the classical two-way automata, then there must also exist a polynomial trade-off for the pebble two-way automata. Thus, we have an upward collapse (or a downward separation) from the classical two-way automata to more powerful pebble automata, still staying within the class of regular languages. The same upward collapse holds for complementation of nondeterministic two-way machines. These results are obtained by showing that each pebble machine can be, by using suitable inputs, simulated by a classical two-way automaton with a linear number of states (and vice versa), despite the existing exponential blow-up between the classical and pebble two-way machines

Algorithms and lower bounds in finite automata size complexity

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2006.Includes bibliographical references (p. 97-99).In this thesis we investigate the relative succinctness of several types of finite automata, focusing mainly on the following four basic models: one-way deterministic (1)FAs), one-way nondeterministic (1NFAs), two-way deterministic (2DFAS), and two-way nondeterministic (2NFAS). First, we establish the exact values of the trade-offs for all conversions from two-way to one-way automata. Specifically, we prove that the functions ... return the exact values of the trade-offs from 2DFAS to 1DFAS, from 2NFAS to 1DFAs, and from 2DFAs or 2NFAS to 1NFAs, respectively. Second, we examine the question whether the trade-offs from NFAs or 2NFAS to 2DiFAs are polynomial or not. We prove two theorems for liveness, the complete problem for the conversion from 1NFAS to 2DFAS. We first focus on moles, a restricted class of 2NFAs that includes the polynomially large 1NFAS which solve liveness. We prove that, in contrast, 2DFA moles cannot solve liveness, irrespective of size.(cont.) We then focus on sweeping 2NFAS, which can change the direction of their input head only on the end-markers. We prove that all sweeping 2NFAs solving the complement of liveness are of exponential size. A simple modification of this argument also proves that the trade-off from 2DFAS to sweeping 2NFAS is exponential. Finally, we examine conversions between two-way automata with more than one head-like devices (e.g., heads, linearly bounded counters, pebbles). We prove that, if the automata of some type A have enough resources to (i) solve problems that no automaton of some other type B can solve, and (ii) simulate any unary 2DFA that has additional access to a linearly-bounded counter, then the trade-off from automata of type A to automata of type B admits no recursive upper bound.by Christos Kapoutsis.Ph.D