Minimizing finite automata is computationally hard

It is known that deterministic finite automata (DFAs) can be algorithmically minimized, i.e., a DFA M can be converted to an equivalent DFA M' which has a minimal number of states. The minimization can be done efficiently [6]. On the other hand, it is known that unambiguous finite automata (UFAs) and nondeterministic finite automata (NFAs) can be algorithmically minimized too, but their minimization problems turn out to be NP-complete and PSPACE-complete [8]. In this paper, the time complexity of the minimization problem for two restricted types of finite automata is investigated. These automata are nearly deterministic, since they only allow a small amount of non determinism to be used. On the one hand, NFAs with a fixed finite branching are studied, i.e., the number of nondeterministic moves within every accepting computation is bounded by a fixed finite number. On the other hand, finite automata are investigated which are essentially deterministic except that there is a fixed number of different initial states which can be chosen nondeterministically. The main result is that the minimization problems for these models are computationally hard, namely NP-complete. Hence, even the slightest extension of the deterministic model towards a nondeterministic one, e.g., allowing at most one nondeterministic move in every accepting computation or allowing two initial states instead of one, results in computationally intractable minimization problems

Finite Automata for the Sub- and Superword Closure of CFLs: Descriptional and Computational Complexity

We answer two open questions by (Gruber, Holzer, Kutrib, 2009) on the state-complexity of representing sub- or superword closures of context-free grammars (CFGs): (1) We prove a (tight) upper bound of $2^{\mathcal{O}(n)}$ on the size of nondeterministic finite automata (NFAs) representing the subword closure of a CFG of size $n$. (2) We present a family of CFGs for which the minimal deterministic finite automata representing their subword closure matches the upper-bound of $2^{2^{\mathcal{O}(n)}}$ following from (1). Furthermore, we prove that the inequivalence problem for NFAs representing sub- or superword-closed languages is only NP-complete as opposed to PSPACE-complete for general NFAs. Finally, we extend our results into an approximation method to attack inequivalence problems for CFGs

Edit Distance for Pushdown Automata

The edit distance between two words $w_1, w_2$ is the minimal number of word operations (letter insertions, deletions, and substitutions) necessary to transform $w_1$ to $w_2$. The edit distance generalizes to languages $\mathcal{L}_1, \mathcal{L}_2$, where the edit distance from $\mathcal{L}_1$ to $\mathcal{L}_2$ is the minimal number $k$ such that for every word from $\mathcal{L}_1$ there exists a word in $\mathcal{L}_2$ with edit distance at most $k$. We study the edit distance computation problem between pushdown automata and their subclasses. The problem of computing edit distance to a pushdown automaton is undecidable, and in practice, the interesting question is to compute the edit distance from a pushdown automaton (the implementation, a standard model for programs with recursion) to a regular language (the specification). In this work, we present a complete picture of decidability and complexity for the following problems: (1)~deciding whether, for a given threshold $k$, the edit distance from a pushdown automaton to a finite automaton is at most $k$, and (2)~deciding whether the edit distance from a pushdown automaton to a finite automaton is finite.Comment: An extended version of a paper accepted to ICALP 2015 with the same title. The paper has been accepted to the LMCS journa

Decision Problems For Convex Languages

In this paper we examine decision problems associated with various classes of convex languages, studied by Ang and Brzozowski (under the name "continuous languages"). We show that we can decide whether a given language L is prefix-, suffix-, factor-, or subword-convex in polynomial time if L is represented by a DFA, but that the problem is PSPACE-hard if L is represented by an NFA. In the case that a regular language is not convex, we prove tight upper bounds on the length of the shortest words demonstrating this fact, in terms of the number of states of an accepting DFA. Similar results are proved for some subclasses of convex languages: the prefix-, suffix-, factor-, and subword-closed languages, and the prefix-, suffix-, factor-, and subword-free languages.Comment: preliminary version. This version corrected one typo in Section 2.1.1, line