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

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

Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds

A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial time lower bounds for solving natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, Mod6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. The proofs of these lower bounds follow a certain proof-by-contradiction strategy that we call alternation-trading. An important open problem is to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be. We propose a methodology for studying these proofs that makes them amenable to both formal analysis and automated theorem proving. We prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. Implementing a small-scale theorem prover based on this result, we extract new human-readable time lower bounds for several problems. This framework can also be used to prove concrete limitations on the current techniques.Comment: To appear in STACS 2010, 12 page

Observations on complete sets between linear time and polynomial time

AbstractThere is a single set that is complete for a variety of nondeterministic time complexity classes with respect to related versions of m-reducibility. This observation immediately leads to transfer results for determinism versus nondeterminism solutions. Also, an upward transfer of collapses of certain oracle hierarchies, built analogously to the polynomial-time or the linear-time hierarchies, can be shown by means of uniformly constructed sets that are complete for related levels of all these hierarchies. A similar result holds for difference hierarchies over nondeterministic complexity classes. Finally, we give an oracle set relative to which the nondeterministic classes coincide with the deterministic ones, for several sets of time bounds, and we prove that the strictness of the tape-number hierarchy for deterministic linear-time Turing machines does not relativize

On the limits of the communication complexity technique for proving lower bounds on the size of minimal NFA’s

AbstractIn contrast to the minimization of deterministic finite automata (DFA’s), the task of constructing a minimal nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) for a given NFA is PSPACE-complete. Moreover, there are no polynomial approximation algorithms with a constant approximation ratio for estimating the number of states of minimal NFA’s.Since one is unable to efficiently estimate the size of a minimal NFA in an efficient way, one should ask at least for developing mathematical proof methods that help to prove good lower bounds on the size of a minimal NFA for a given regular language. Here we consider the robust and most successful lower bound proof technique that is based on communication complexity. In this paper it is proved that even a strong generalization of this method fails for some concrete regular languages.“To fail” is considered here in a very strong sense. There is an exponential gap between the size of a minimal NFA and the achievable lower bound for a specific sequence of regular languages.The generalization of the concept of communication protocols is also strong here. It is shown that cutting the input word into 2O(n1/4) pieces for a size n of a minimal nondeterministic finite automaton and investigating the necessary communication transfer between these pieces as parties of a multiparty protocol does not suffice to get good lower bounds on the size of minimal nondeterministic automata. It seems that for some regular languages one cannot really abstract from the automata model that cuts the input words into particular symbols of the alphabet and reads them one by one using its input head

Two-Way Automata Making Choices Only at the Endmarkers

The question of the state-size cost for simulation of two-way nondeterministic automata (2NFAs) by two-way deterministic automata (2DFAs) was raised in 1978 and, despite many attempts, it is still open. Subsequently, the problem was attacked by restricting the power of 2DFAs (e.g., using a restricted input head movement) to the degree for which it was already possible to derive some exponential gaps between the weaker model and the standard 2NFAs. Here we use an opposite approach, increasing the power of 2DFAs to the degree for which it is still possible to obtain a subexponential conversion from the stronger model to the standard 2DFAs. In particular, it turns out that subexponential conversion is possible for two-way automata that make nondeterministic choices only when the input head scans one of the input tape endmarkers. However, there is no restriction on the input head movement. This implies that an exponential gap between 2NFAs and 2DFAs can be obtained only for unrestricted 2NFAs using capabilities beyond the proposed new model. As an additional bonus, conversion into a machine for the complement of the original language is polynomial in this model. The same holds for making such machines self-verifying, halting, or unambiguous. Finally, any superpolynomial lower bound for the simulation of such machines by standard 2DFAs would imply LNL. In the same way, the alternating version of these machines is related to L =? NL =? P, the classical computational complexity problems.Comment: 23 page