On the state complexity of semi-quantum finite automata

Some of the most interesting and important results concerning quantum finite automata are those showing that they can recognize certain languages with (much) less resources than corresponding classical finite automata \cite{Amb98,Amb09,AmYa11,Ber05,Fre09,Mer00,Mer01,Mer02,Yak10,ZhgQiu112,Zhg12}. This paper shows three results of such a type that are stronger in some sense than other ones because (a) they deal with models of quantum automata with very little quantumness (so-called semi-quantum one- and two-way automata with one qubit memory only); (b) differences, even comparing with probabilistic classical automata, are bigger than expected; (c) a trade-off between the number of classical and quantum basis states needed is demonstrated in one case and (d) languages (or the promise problem) used to show main results are very simple and often explored ones in automata theory or in communication complexity, with seemingly little structure that could be utilized.Comment: 19 pages. We improve (make stronger) the results in section

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

Quotient Complexity of Regular Languages

The past research on the state complexity of operations on regular languages is examined, and a new approach based on an old method (derivatives of regular expressions) is presented. Since state complexity is a property of a language, it is appropriate to define it in formal-language terms as the number of distinct quotients of the language, and to call it "quotient complexity". The problem of finding the quotient complexity of a language f(K,L) is considered, where K and L are regular languages and f is a regular operation, for example, union or concatenation. Since quotients can be represented by derivatives, one can find a formula for the typical quotient of f(K,L) in terms of the quotients of K and L. To obtain an upper bound on the number of quotients of f(K,L) all one has to do is count how many such quotients are possible, and this makes automaton constructions unnecessary. The advantages of this point of view are illustrated by many examples. Moreover, new general observations are presented to help in the estimation of the upper bounds on quotient complexity of regular operations

Quantum Cellular Automata

Quantum cellular automata (QCA) are reviewed, including early and more recent proposals. QCA are a generalization of (classical) cellular automata (CA) and in particular of reversible CA. The latter are reviewed shortly. An overview is given over early attempts by various authors to define one-dimensional QCA. These turned out to have serious shortcomings which are discussed as well. Various proposals subsequently put forward by a number of authors for a general definition of one- and higher-dimensional QCA are reviewed and their properties such as universality and reversibility are discussed.Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures. To appear in the Springer Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Scienc

Automata and rational expressions

This text is an extended version of the chapter 'Automata and rational expressions' in the AutoMathA Handbook that will appear soon, published by the European Science Foundation and edited by JeanEricPin

Boolean Circuit Complexity of Regular Languages

In this paper we define a new descriptional complexity measure for Deterministic Finite Automata, BC-complexity, as an alternative to the state complexity. We prove that for two DFAs with the same number of states BC-complexity can differ exponentially. In some cases minimization of DFA can lead to an exponential increase in BC-complexity, on the other hand BC-complexity of DFAs with a large state space which are obtained by some standard constructions (determinization of NFA, language operations), is reasonably small. But our main result is the analogue of the "Shannon effect" for finite automata: almost all DFAs with a fixed number of states have BC-complexity that is close to the maximum.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527

Reachability in Higher-Order-Counters

Higher-order counter automata (\HOCS) can be either seen as a restriction of higher-order pushdown automata (\HOPS) to a unary stack alphabet, or as an extension of counter automata to higher levels. We distinguish two principal kinds of \HOCS: those that can test whether the topmost counter value is zero and those which cannot. We show that control-state reachability for level $k$ \HOCS with $0$-test is complete for \mbox{$(k-2)$}-fold exponential space; leaving out the $0$-test leads to completeness for \mbox{$(k-2)$}-fold exponential time. Restricting \HOCS (without $0$-test) to level $2$, we prove that global (forward or backward) reachability analysis is \PTIME-complete. This enhances the known result for pushdown systems which are subsumed by level $2$ \HOCS without $0$-test. We transfer our results to the formal language setting. Assuming that \PTIME \subsetneq \PSPACE \subsetneq \mathbf{EXPTIME}, we apply proof ideas of Engelfriet and conclude that the hierarchies of languages of \HOPS and of \HOCS form strictly interleaving hierarchies. Interestingly, Engelfriet's constructions also allow to conclude immediately that the hierarchy of collapsible pushdown languages is strict level-by-level due to the existing complexity results for reachability on collapsible pushdown graphs. This answers an open question independently asked by Parys and by Kobayashi.Comment: Version with Full Proofs of a paper that appears at MFCS 201