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

Descriptional Complexity of Finite Automata -- Selected Highlights

The state complexity, respectively, nondeterministic state complexity of a regular language $L$ is the number of states of the minimal deterministic, respectively, of a minimal nondeterministic finite automaton for $L$. Some of the most studied state complexity questions deal with size comparisons of nondeterministic finite automata of differing degree of ambiguity. More generally, if for a regular language we compare the size of description by a finite automaton and by a more powerful language definition mechanism, such as a context-free grammar, we encounter non-recursive trade-offs. Operational state complexity studies the state complexity of the language resulting from a regularity preserving operation as a function of the complexity of the argument languages. Determining the state complexity of combined operations is generally challenging and for general combinations of operations that include intersection and marked concatenation it is uncomputable

On the Succinctness of Alternating Parity Good-For-Games Automata

We study alternating parity good-for-games (GFG) automata, i.e., alternating parity automata where both conjunctive and disjunctive choices can be resolved in an online manner, without knowledge of the suffix of the input word still to be read. We show that they can be exponentially more succinct than both their nondeterministic and universal counterparts. Furthermore, we present a single exponential determinisation procedure and an Exptime upper bound to the problem of recognising whether an alternating automaton is GFG. We also study the complexity of deciding "half-GFGness", a property specific to alternating automata that only requires nondeterministic choices to be resolved in an online manner. We show that this problem is PSpace-hard already for alternating automata on finite words

Alternation and Bounded Concurrency Are Reverse Equivalent

AbstractNumerous models of concurrency have been considered in the framework of automata. Among the more interesting concurrency models are classical nondeterminism and pure concurrency, the two facets of alternation, and the bounded concurrency model. Bounded concurrency was previously considered to be similar to nondeterminism and pure concurrency in the sense of the succinctness of automata augmented with these features. In this paper we show that, when viewed more broadly, the power (of succinctness) of bounded concurrency is in fact most similar to the power of alternation. Our contribution is that, just like nondeterminism and pure concurrency are “complement equivalent,” bounded concurrency and alternation are “reverse equivalent” over finite automata. The reverse equivalence is expressed by the existence of polynomial transformations, in both directions, between bounded concurrency and alternation for the reverse of the language accepted by the other. It follows, that bounded concurrency is double-exponentially more succinct than DFAs with respect to reverse, while alternation only saves one exponent. This is as opposed to the direct case where alternation saves two exponents and bounded concurrency saves only one. An immediate corollary is that for languages over a one-letter alphabet, bounded concurrency and alternation are equivalent. We complete the picture of succinctness results for these languages by considering the different combinations of the concurrency models using additional lower bounds

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

How Deterministic are Good-For-Games Automata?

In GFG automata, it is possible to resolve nondeterminism in a way that only depends on the past and still accepts all the words in the language. The motivation for GFG automata comes from their adequacy for games and synthesis, wherein general nondeterminism is inappropriate. We continue the ongoing effort of studying the power of nondeterminism in GFG automata. Initial indications have hinted that every GFG automaton embodies a deterministic one. Today we know that this is not the case, and in fact GFG automata may be exponentially more succinct than deterministic ones. We focus on the typeness question, namely the question of whether a GFG automaton with a certain acceptance condition has an equivalent GFG automaton with a weaker acceptance condition on the same structure. Beyond the theoretical interest in studying typeness, its existence implies efficient translations among different acceptance conditions. This practical issue is of special interest in the context of games, where the Buchi and co-Buchi conditions admit memoryless strategies for both players. Typeness is known to hold for deterministic automata and not to hold for general nondeterministic automata. We show that GFG automata enjoy the benefits of typeness, similarly to the case of deterministic automata. In particular, when Rabin or Streett GFG automata have equivalent Buchi or co-Buchi GFG automata, respectively, then such equivalent automata can be defined on a substructure of the original automata. Using our typeness results, we further study the place of GFG automata in between deterministic and nondeterministic ones. Specifically, considering automata complementation, we show that GFG automata lean toward nondeterministic ones, admitting an exponential state blow-up in the complementation of a Streett automaton into a Rabin automaton, as opposed to the constant blow-up in the deterministic case

On the Succinctness of Good-for-MDPs Automata

Good-for-MDPs and good-for-games automata are two recent classes of nondeterministic automata that reside between general nondeterministic and deterministic automata. Deterministic automata are good-for-games, and good-for-games automata are good-for-MDPs, but not vice versa. One of the question this raises is how these classes relate in terms of succinctness. Good-for-games automata are known to be exponentially more succinct than deterministic automata, but the gap between good-for-MDPs and good-for-games automata as well as the gap between ordinary nondeterministic automata and those that are good-for-MDPs have been open. We establish that these gaps are exponential, and sharpen this result by showing that the latter gap remains exponential when restricting the nondeterministic automata to separating safety or unambiguous reachability automata.Comment: 18 page