8,999 research outputs found
Two-tape finite automata with quantum and classical states
{\it Two-way finite automata with quantum and classical states} (2QCFA) were
introduced by Ambainis and Watrous, and {\it two-way two-tape deterministic
finite automata} (2TFA) were introduced by Rabin and Scott. In this paper we
study 2TFA and propose a new computing model called {\it two-way two-tape
finite automata with quantum and classical states} (2TQCFA). First, we give
efficient 2TFA algorithms for recognizing languages which can be recognized by
2QCFA. Second, we give efficient 2TQCFA algorithms to recognize several
languages whose status vis-a-vis 2QCFA have been posed as open questions, such
as . Third, we show that
can be recognized by {\it -tape
deterministic finite automata} (TFA). Finally, we introduce {\it
-tape automata with quantum and classical states} (TQCFA) and prove that
can be recognized by TQCFA.Comment: 25 page
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
Finite automata with advice tapes
We define a model of advised computation by finite automata where the advice
is provided on a separate tape. We consider several variants of the model where
the advice is deterministic or randomized, the input tape head is allowed
real-time, one-way, or two-way access, and the automaton is classical or
quantum. We prove several separation results among these variants, demonstrate
an infinite hierarchy of language classes recognized by automata with
increasing advice lengths, and establish the relationships between this and the
previously studied ways of providing advice to finite automata.Comment: Corrected typo
Once-Marking and Always-Marking 1-Limited Automata
Single-tape nondeterministic Turing machines that are allowed to replace the
symbol in each tape cell only when it is scanned for the first time are also
known as 1-limited automata. These devices characterize, exactly as finite
automata, the class of regular languages. However, they can be extremely more
succinct. Indeed, in the worst case the size gap from 1-limited automata to
one-way deterministic finite automata is double exponential.
Here we introduce two restricted versions of 1-limited automata, once-marking
1-limited automata and always-marking 1-limited automata, and study their
descriptional complexity. We prove that once-marking 1-limited automata still
exhibit a double exponential size gap to one-way deterministic finite automata.
However, their deterministic restriction is polynomially related in size to
two-way deterministic finite automata, in contrast to deterministic 1-limited
automata, whose equivalent two-way deterministic finite automata in the worst
case are exponentially larger. For always-marking 1-limited automata, we prove
that the size gap to one-way deterministic finite automata is only a single
exponential. The gap remains exponential even in the case the given machine is
deterministic.
We obtain other size relationships between different variants of these
machines and finite automata and we present some problems that deserve
investigation.Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2023, arXiv:2309.0112
Converting Nondeterministic Two-Way Automata into Small Deterministic Linear-Time Machines
In 1978 Sakoda and Sipser raised the question of the cost, in terms of size
of representations, of the transformation of two-way and one-way
nondeterministic automata into equivalent two-way deterministic automata.
Despite all the attempts, the question has been answered only for particular
cases (e.g., restrictions of the class of simulated automata or of the class of
simulating automata). However the problem remains open in the general case, the
best-known upper bound being exponential. We present a new approach in which
unrestricted nondeterministic finite automata are simulated by deterministic
models extending two-way deterministic finite automata, paying a polynomial
increase of size only. Indeed, we study the costs of the conversions of
nondeterministic finite automata into some variants of one-tape deterministic
Turing machines working in linear time, namely Hennie machines, weight-reducing
Turing machines, and weight-reducing Hennie machines. All these variants are
known to share the same computational power: they characterize the class of
regular languages
On Hadamard Series and Rotating Q-Automata
In this paper, we study rotating Q-automata, which are (memoryless) automata with weights in Q, that can read the input tape from left to right several times. We show that the series realized by valid rotating Q-automata are Q-Hadamard series (which are the closure of Q-rational series by pointwise inverse), and that every Q-Hadamard series can be realized by such an automaton. We prove that, although validity of rotating Q-automata is undecidable, the equivalence problem is decidable on rotating Q-automata. Finally, we prove that every valid two-way Q-automaton admits an equivalent rotating Q-automaton. The conversion, which is effective, implies the decidability of equivalence of two-way Q-automata
Forgetting 1-Limited Automata
We introduce and investigate forgetting 1-limited automata, which are
single-tape Turing machines that, when visiting a cell for the first time,
replace the input symbol in it by a fixed symbol, so forgetting the original
contents. These devices have the same computational power as finite automata,
namely they characterize the class of regular languages. We study the cost in
size of the conversions of forgetting 1-limited automata, in both
nondeterministic and deterministic cases, into equivalent one-way
nondeterministic and deterministic automata, providing optimal bounds in terms
of exponential or superpolynomial functions. We also discuss the size
relationships with two-way finite automata. In this respect, we prove the
existence of a language for which forgetting 1-limited automata are
exponentially larger than equivalent minimal deterministic two-way automata.Comment: In Proceedings NCMA 2023, arXiv:2309.0733
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
- …