Optimal simulations between unary automata

We consider the problem of computing the costs---{ in terms of states---of optimal simulations between different kinds of finite automata recognizing unary languages. Our main result is a tight simulation of unary n-state two-way nondeterministic automata by $O({{\rm e}^{\sqrt{{n}\ln{n}}}})$-state one-way deterministic automata. In addition, we show that, given a unary n-state two-way nondeterministic automaton, one can construct an equivalent O(n^2)-state two-way nondeterministic automaton performing both input head reversals and nondeterministic choices only at the ends of the input tape. Further results on simulating unary one-way alternating finite automata are also discussed

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

Bounded Languages Meet Cellular Automata with Sparse Communication

Cellular automata are one-dimensional arrays of interconnected interacting finite automata. We investigate one of the weakest classes, the real-time one-way cellular automata, and impose an additional restriction on their inter-cell communication by bounding the number of allowed uses of the links between cells. Moreover, we consider the devices as acceptors for bounded languages in order to explore the borderline at which non-trivial decidability problems of cellular automata classes become decidable. It is shown that even devices with drastically reduced communication, that is, each two neighboring cells may communicate only constantly often, accept bounded languages that are not semilinear. If the number of communications is at least logarithmic in the length of the input, several problems are undecidable. The same result is obtained for classes where the total number of communications during a computation is linearly bounded

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

Converting two-way nondeterministic unary automata into simpler automata

AbstractWe show that, on inputs of length exceeding 5n2, any n-state unary two-way nondeterministic finite automaton (2nfa) can be simulated by a (2n+2)-state quasi-sweeping 2nfa. Such a result, besides providing a “normal form” for 2nfa's, enables us to get a subexponential simulation of unary 2nfa's by two-way deterministic finite automata (2dfa's). In fact, we prove that any n-state unary 2nfa can be simulated by a sweeping 2dfa with O(n⌈log2(n+1)+3⌉) states

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

REGULAR LANGUAGES: TO FINITE AUTOMATA AND BEYOND - SUCCINCT DESCRIPTIONS AND OPTIMAL SIMULATIONS

\uc8 noto che i linguaggi regolari \u2014 o di tipo 3 \u2014 sono equivalenti agli automi a stati finiti. Tuttavia, in letteratura sono presenti altre caratterizzazioni di questa classe di linguaggi, in termini di modelli riconoscitori e grammatiche. Per esempio, limitando le risorse computazionali di modelli pi\uf9 generali, quali grammatiche context-free, automi a pila e macchine di Turing, che caratterizzano classi di linguaggi pi\uf9 ampie, \ue8 possibile ottenere modelli che generano o riconoscono solamente i linguaggi regolari. I dispositivi risultanti forniscono delle rappresentazioni alternative dei linguaggi di tipo 3, che, in alcuni casi, risultano significativamente pi\uf9 compatte rispetto a quelle dei modelli che caratterizzano la stessa classe di linguaggi. Il presente lavoro ha l\u2019obiettivo di studiare questi modelli formali dal punto di vista della complessit\ue0 descrizionale, o, in altre parole, di analizzare le relazioni tra le loro dimensioni, ossia il numero di simboli utilizzati per specificare la loro descrizione. Sono presentati, inoltre, alcuni risultati connessi allo studio della famosa domanda tuttora aperta posta da Sakoda e Sipser nel 1978, inerente al costo, in termini di numero di stati, per l\u2019eliminazione del nondeterminismo dagli automi stati finiti sfruttando la capacit\ue0 degli automi two-way deterministici di muovere la testina avanti e indietro sul nastro di input.It is well known that regular \u2014 or type 3 \u2014 languages are equivalent to finite automata. Nevertheless, many other characterizations of this class of languages in terms of computational devices and generative models are present in the literature. For example, by suitably restricting more general models such as context-free grammars, pushdown automata, and Turing machines, that characterize wider classes of languages, it is possible to obtain formal models that generate or recognize regular languages only. The resulting formalisms provide alternative representations of type 3 languages that may be significantly more concise than other models that share the same expressing power. The goal of this work is to investigate these formal systems from a descriptional complexity perspective, or, in other words, to study the relationships between their sizes, namely the number of symbols used to write down their descriptions. We also present some results related to the investigation of the famous question posed by Sakoda and Sipser in 1978, concerning the size blowups from nondeterministic finite automata to two-way deterministic finite automata