Limited automata and unary languages

Limited automata are one-tape Turing machines that are allowed to rewrite the content of any tape cell only in the first d visits, for a fixed constant d. When d = 1 these models characterize regular languages. An exponential gap between the size of limited automata accepting unary languages and the size of equivalent finite automata is proved. Since a similar gap was already known from unary contextfree grammars to finite automata, also the conversion of such grammars into limited automata is investigated. It is proved that from each unary context-free grammar it is possible to obtain an equivalent 1-limited automaton whose description has a size which is polynomial in the size of the grammar. Furthermore, despite the exponential gap between the sizes of limited automata and of equivalent unary finite automata, there are unary regular languages for which d-limited automata cannot be significantly smaller than equivalent finite automata, for any arbitrarily large d

The descriptive complexity approach to LOGCFL

Building upon the known generalized-quantifier-based first-order characterization of LOGCFL, we lay the groundwork for a deeper investigation. Specifically, we examine subclasses of LOGCFL arising from varying the arity and nesting of groupoidal quantifiers. Our work extends the elaborate theory relating monoidal quantifiers to NC1 and its subclasses. In the absence of the BIT predicate, we resolve the main issues: we show in particular that no single outermost unary groupoidal quantifier with FO can capture all the context-free languages, and we obtain the surprising result that a variant of Greibach's ``hardest context-free language'' is LOGCFL-complete under quantifier-free BIT-free projections. We then prove that FO with unary groupoidal quantifiers is strictly more expressive with the BIT predicate than without. Considering a particular groupoidal quantifier, we prove that first-order logic with majority of pairs is strictly more expressive than first-order with majority of individuals. As a technical tool of independent interest, we define the notion of an aperiodic nondeterministic finite automaton and prove that FO translations are precisely the mappings computed by single-valued aperiodic nondeterministic finite transducers.Comment: 10 pages, 1 figur

From Finite Automata to Regular Expressions and Back--A Summary on Descriptional Complexity

The equivalence of finite automata and regular expressions dates back to the seminal paper of Kleene on events in nerve nets and finite automata from 1956. In the present paper we tour a fragment of the literature and summarize results on upper and lower bounds on the conversion of finite automata to regular expressions and vice versa. We also briefly recall the known bounds for the removal of spontaneous transitions (epsilon-transitions) on non-epsilon-free nondeterministic devices. Moreover, we report on recent results on the average case descriptional complexity bounds for the conversion of regular expressions to finite automata and brand new developments on the state elimination algorithm that converts finite automata to regular expressions.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527

On the Expressiveness of Languages for Complex Event Recognition

Complex Event Recognition (CER for short) has recently gained attention as a mechanism for detecting patterns in streams of continuously arriving event data. Numerous CER systems and languages have been proposed in the literature, commonly based on combining operations from regular expressions (sequencing, iteration, and disjunction) and relational algebra (e.g., joins and filters). While these languages are naturally first-order, meaning that variables can only bind single elements, they also provide capabilities for filtering sets of events that occur inside iterative patterns; for example requiring sequences of numbers to be increasing. Unfortunately, these type of filters usually present ad-hoc syntax and under-defined semantics, precisely because variables cannot bind sets of events. As a result, CER languages that provide filtering of sequences commonly lack rigorous semantics and their expressive power is not understood. In this paper we embark on two tasks: First, to define a denotational semantics for CER that naturally allows to bind and filter sets of events; and second, to compare the expressive power of this semantics with that of CER languages that only allow for binding single events. Concretely, we introduce Set-Oriented Complex Event Logic (SO-CEL for short), a variation of the CER language introduced in [Grez et al., 2019] in which all variables bind to sets of matched events. We then compare SO-CEL with CEL, the CER language of [Grez et al., 2019] where variables bind single events. We show that they are equivalent in expressive power when restricted to unary predicates but, surprisingly, incomparable in general. Nevertheless, we show that if we restrict to sets of binary predicates, then SO-CEL is strictly more expressive than CEL. To get a better understanding of the expressive power, computational capabilities, and limitations of SO-CEL, we also investigate the relationship between SO-CEL and Complex Event Automata (CEA), a natural computational model for CER languages. We define a property on CEA called the *-property and show that, under unary predicates, SO-CEL captures precisely the subclass of CEA that satisfy this property. Finally, we identify the operations that SO-CEL is lacking to characterize CEA and introduce a natural extension of the language that captures the complete class of CEA under unary predicates

One-Tape Turing Machine Variants and Language Recognition

We present two restricted versions of one-tape Turing machines. Both characterize the class of context-free languages. In the first version, proposed by Hibbard in 1967 and called limited automata, each tape cell can be rewritten only in the first $d$ visits, for a fixed constant $d\geq 2$. Furthermore, for $d=2$ deterministic limited automata are equivalent to deterministic pushdown automata, namely they characterize deterministic context-free languages. Further restricting the possible operations, we consider strongly limited automata. These models still characterize context-free languages. However, the deterministic version is less powerful than the deterministic version of limited automata. In fact, there exist deterministic context-free languages that are not accepted by any deterministic strongly limited automaton.Comment: 20 pages. This article will appear in the Complexity Theory Column of the September 2015 issue of SIGACT New