Trees over Infinite Structures and Path Logics with Synchronization

We provide decidability and undecidability results on the model-checking problem for infinite tree structures. These tree structures are built from sequences of elements of infinite relational structures. More precisely, we deal with the tree iteration of a relational structure M in the sense of Shelah-Stupp. In contrast to classical results where model-checking is shown decidable for MSO-logic, we show decidability of the tree model-checking problem for logics that allow only path quantifiers and chain quantifiers (where chains are subsets of paths), as they appear in branching time logics; however, at the same time the tree is enriched by the equal-level relation (which holds between vertices u, v if they are on the same tree level). We separate cleanly the tree logic from the logic used for expressing properties of the underlying structure M. We illustrate the scope of the decidability results by showing that two slight extensions of the framework lead to undecidability. In particular, this applies to the (stronger) tree iteration in the sense of Muchnik-Walukiewicz.Comment: In Proceedings INFINITY 2011, arXiv:1111.267

The Isomorphism Relation Between Tree-Automatic Structures

An $\omega$-tree-automatic structure is a relational structure whose domain and relations are accepted by Muller or Rabin tree automata. We investigate in this paper the isomorphism problem for $\omega$-tree-automatic structures. We prove first that the isomorphism relation for $\omega$-tree-automatic boolean algebras (respectively, partial orders, rings, commutative rings, non commutative rings, non commutative groups, nilpotent groups of class n >1) is not determined by the axiomatic system ZFC. Then we prove that the isomorphism problem for $\omega$-tree-automatic boolean algebras (respectively, partial orders, rings, commutative rings, non commutative rings, non commutative groups, nilpotent groups of class n >1) is neither a $\Sigma_2^1$-set nor a $\Pi_2^1$-set

Cardinality and counting quantifiers on omega-automatic structures

We investigate structures that can be represented by omega-automata, so called omega-automatic structures, and prove that relations defined over such structures in first-order logic expanded by the first-order quantifiers `there exist at most $\aleph_0$ many', 'there exist finitely many' and 'there exist $k$ modulo $m$ many' are omega-regular. The proof identifies certain algebraic properties of omega-semigroups. As a consequence an omega-regular equivalence relation of countable index has an omega-regular set of representatives. This implies Blumensath's conjecture that a countable structure with an $\omega$-automatic presentation can be represented using automata on finite words. This also complements a very recent result of Hj\"orth, Khoussainov, Montalban and Nies showing that there is an omega-automatic structure which has no injective presentation

Tree games with regular objectives

We study tree games developed recently by Matteo Mio as a game interpretation of the probabilistic $\mu$-calculus. With expressive power comes complexity. Mio showed that tree games are able to encode Blackwell games and, consequently, are not determined under deterministic strategies. We show that non-stochastic tree games with objectives recognisable by so-called game automata are determined under deterministic, finite memory strategies. Moreover, we give an elementary algorithmic procedure which, for an arbitrary regular language L and a finite non-stochastic tree game with a winning objective L decides if the game is determined under deterministic strategies.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2014, arXiv:1408.556

On the logical definability of certain graph and poset languages

We show that it is equivalent, for certain sets of finite graphs, to be definable in CMS (counting monadic second-order logic, a natural extension of monadic second-order logic), and to be recognizable in an algebraic framework induced by the notion of modular decomposition of a finite graph. More precisely, we consider the set $F\_\infty$ of composition operations on graphs which occur in the modular decomposition of finite graphs. If $F$ is a subset of $F\_{\infty}$, we say that a graph is an \calF-graph if it can be decomposed using only operations in $F$. A set of $F$-graphs is recognizable if it is a union of classes in a finite-index equivalence relation which is preserved by the operations in $F$. We show that if $F$ is finite and its elements enjoy only a limited amount of commutativity -- a property which we call weak rigidity, then recognizability is equivalent to CMS-definability. This requirement is weak enough to be satisfied whenever all $F$-graphs are posets, that is, transitive dags. In particular, our result generalizes Kuske's recent result on series-parallel poset languages

Cardinality and counting quantifiers on omega-automatic structures

We investigate structures that can be represented by omega-automata, so called omega-automatic structures, and prove that relations defined over such structures in first-order logic expanded by the first-order quantifiers `there exist at most $aleph_0$ many\u27, \u27there exist finitely many\u27 and \u27there exist $k$ modulo $m$ many\u27 are omega-regular. The proof identifies certain algebraic properties of omega-semigroups. As a consequence an omega-regular equivalence relation of countable index has an omega-regular set of representatives. This implies Blumensath\u27s conjecture that a countable structure with an $omega$-automatic presentation can be represented using automata on finite words. This also complements a very recent result of Hj"orth, Khoussainov, Montalban and Nies showing that there is an omega-automatic structure which has no injective presentation

On factorisation forests

The theorem of factorisation forests shows the existence of nested factorisations -- a la Ramsey -- for finite words. This theorem has important applications in semigroup theory, and beyond. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the importance of this approach in the context of automata over infinite words and trees. We extend the theorem of factorisation forest in two directions: we show that it is still valid for any word indexed by a linear ordering; and we show that it admits a deterministic variant for words indexed by well-orderings. A byproduct of this work is also an improvement on the known bounds for the original result. We apply the first variant for giving a simplified proof of the closure under complementation of rational sets of words indexed by countable scattered linear orderings. We apply the second variant in the analysis of monadic second-order logic over trees, yielding new results on monadic interpretations over trees. Consequences of it are new caracterisations of prefix-recognizable structures and of the Caucal hierarchy.Comment: 27 page

Ambiguity Hierarchy of Regular Infinite Tree Languages

An automaton is unambiguous if for every input it has at most one accepting computation. An automaton is k-ambiguous (for k>0) if for every input it has at most k accepting computations. An automaton is boundedly ambiguous if there is k, such that for every input it has at most k accepting computations. An automaton is finitely (respectively, countably) ambiguous if for every input it has at most finitely (respectively, countably) many accepting computations. The degree of ambiguity of a regular language is defined in a natural way. A language is k-ambiguous (respectively, boundedly, finitely, countably ambiguous) if it is accepted by a k-ambiguous (respectively, boundedly, finitely, countably ambiguous) automaton. Over finite words, every regular language is accepted by a deterministic automaton. Over finite trees, every regular language is accepted by an unambiguous automaton. Over $\omega$-words every regular language is accepted by an unambiguous B\"uchi automaton and by a deterministic parity automaton. Over infinite trees, Carayol et al. showed that there are ambiguous languages. We show that over infinite trees there is a hierarchy of degrees of ambiguity: For every k>1 there are k-ambiguous languages which are not k-1 ambiguous; and there are finitely (respectively countably, uncountably) ambiguous languages which are not boundedly (respectively finitely, countably) ambiguous.Comment: Revised according to the reviewers comment