Multi-Head Finite Automata: Characterizations, Concepts and Open Problems

Multi-head finite automata were introduced in (Rabin, 1964) and (Rosenberg, 1966). Since that time, a vast literature on computational and descriptional complexity issues on multi-head finite automata documenting the importance of these devices has been developed. Although multi-head finite automata are a simple concept, their computational behavior can be already very complex and leads to undecidable or even non-semi-decidable problems on these devices such as, for example, emptiness, finiteness, universality, equivalence, etc. These strong negative results trigger the study of subclasses and alternative characterizations of multi-head finite automata for a better understanding of the nature of non-recursive trade-offs and, thus, the borderline between decidable and undecidable problems. In the present paper, we tour a fragment of this literature

An Experiment in Ping-Pong Protocol Verification by Nondeterministic Pushdown Automata

An experiment is described that confirms the security of a well-studied class of cryptographic protocols (Dolev-Yao intruder model) can be verified by two-way nondeterministic pushdown automata (2NPDA). A nondeterministic pushdown program checks whether the intersection of a regular language (the protocol to verify) and a given Dyck language containing all canceling words is empty. If it is not, an intruder can reveal secret messages sent between trusted users. The verification is guaranteed to terminate in cubic time at most on a 2NPDA-simulator. The interpretive approach used in this experiment simplifies the verification, by separating the nondeterministic pushdown logic and program control, and makes it more predictable. We describe the interpretive approach and the known transformational solutions, and show they share interesting features. Also noteworthy is how abstract results from automata theory can solve practical problems by programming language means.Comment: In Proceedings MARS/VPT 2018, arXiv:1803.0866

An in-between "implicit" and "explicit" complexity: Automata

Implicit Computational Complexity makes two aspects implicit, by manipulating programming languages rather than models of com-putation, and by internalizing the bounds rather than using external measure. We survey how automata theory contributed to complexity with a machine-dependant with implicit bounds model

Model-checking Quantitative Alternating-time Temporal Logic on One-counter Game Models

We consider quantitative extensions of the alternating-time temporal logics ATL/ATLs called quantitative alternating-time temporal logics (QATL/QATLs) in which the value of a counter can be compared to constants using equality, inequality and modulo constraints. We interpret these logics in one-counter game models which are infinite duration games played on finite control graphs where each transition can increase or decrease the value of an unbounded counter. That is, the state-space of these games are, generally, infinite. We consider the model-checking problem of the logics QATL and QATLs on one-counter game models with VASS semantics for which we develop algorithms and provide matching lower bounds. Our algorithms are based on reductions of the model-checking problems to model-checking games. This approach makes it quite simple for us to deal with extensions of the logical languages as well as the infinite state spaces. The framework generalizes on one hand qualitative problems such as ATL/ATLs model-checking of finite-state systems, model-checking of the branching-time temporal logics CTL and CTLs on one-counter processes and the realizability problem of LTL specifications. On the other hand the model-checking problem for QATL/QATLs generalizes quantitative problems such as the fixed-initial credit problem for energy games (in the case of QATL) and energy parity games (in the case of QATLs). Our results are positive as we show that the generalizations are not too costly with respect to complexity. As a byproduct we obtain new results on the complexity of model-checking CTLs in one-counter processes and show that deciding the winner in one-counter games with LTL objectives is 2ExpSpace-complete.Comment: 22 pages, 12 figure