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

Beyond Language Equivalence on Visibly Pushdown Automata

We study (bi)simulation-like preorder/equivalence checking on the class of visibly pushdown automata and its natural subclasses visibly BPA (Basic Process Algebra) and visibly one-counter automata. We describe generic methods for proving complexity upper and lower bounds for a number of studied preorders and equivalences like simulation, completed simulation, ready simulation, 2-nested simulation preorders/equivalences and bisimulation equivalence. Our main results are that all the mentioned equivalences and preorders are EXPTIME-complete on visibly pushdown automata, PSPACE-complete on visibly one-counter automata and P-complete on visibly BPA. Our PSPACE lower bound for visibly one-counter automata improves also the previously known DP-hardness results for ordinary one-counter automata and one-counter nets. Finally, we study regularity checking problems for visibly pushdown automata and show that they can be decided in polynomial time.Comment: Final version of paper, accepted by LMC

Unary Pushdown Automata and Straight-Line Programs

We consider decision problems for deterministic pushdown automata over a unary alphabet (udpda, for short). Udpda are a simple computation model that accept exactly the unary regular languages, but can be exponentially more succinct than finite-state automata. We complete the complexity landscape for udpda by showing that emptiness (and thus universality) is P-hard, equivalence and compressed membership problems are P-complete, and inclusion is coNP-complete. Our upper bounds are based on a translation theorem between udpda and straight-line programs over the binary alphabet (SLPs). We show that the characteristic sequence of any udpda can be represented as a pair of SLPs---one for the prefix, one for the lasso---that have size linear in the size of the udpda and can be computed in polynomial time. Hence, decision problems on udpda are reduced to decision problems on SLPs. Conversely, any SLP can be converted in logarithmic space into a udpda, and this forms the basis for our lower bound proofs. We show coNP-hardness of the ordered matching problem for SLPs, from which we derive coNP-hardness for inclusion. In addition, we complete the complexity landscape for unary nondeterministic pushdown automata by showing that the universality problem is $\Pi_2 \mathrm P$-hard, using a new class of integer expressions. Our techniques have applications beyond udpda. We show that our results imply $\Pi_2 \mathrm P$-completeness for a natural fragment of Presburger arithmetic and coNP lower bounds for compressed matching problems with one-character wildcards

Decision Problems for Deterministic Pushdown Automata on Infinite Words

The article surveys some decidability results for DPDAs on infinite words (omega-DPDA). We summarize some recent results on the decidability of the regularity and the equivalence problem for the class of weak omega-DPDAs. Furthermore, we present some new results on the parity index problem for omega-DPDAs. For the specification of a parity condition, the states of the omega-DPDA are assigned priorities (natural numbers), and a run is accepting if the highest priority that appears infinitely often during a run is even. The basic simplification question asks whether one can determine the minimal number of priorities that are needed to accept the language of a given omega-DPDA. We provide some decidability results on variations of this question for some classes of omega-DPDAs.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527