173 research outputs found

    Unary Pushdown Automata and Straight-Line Programs

    Full text link
    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 Π2P\Pi_2 \mathrm P-hard, using a new class of integer expressions. Our techniques have applications beyond udpda. We show that our results imply Π2P\Pi_2 \mathrm P-completeness for a natural fragment of Presburger arithmetic and coNP lower bounds for compressed matching problems with one-character wildcards

    Parikh Image of Pushdown Automata

    Full text link
    We compare pushdown automata (PDAs for short) against other representations. First, we show that there is a family of PDAs over a unary alphabet with nn states and p2n+4p \geq 2n + 4 stack symbols that accepts one single long word for which every equivalent context-free grammar needs Ω(n2(p2n4))\Omega(n^2(p-2n-4)) variables. This family shows that the classical algorithm for converting a PDA to an equivalent context-free grammar is optimal even when the alphabet is unary. Moreover, we observe that language equivalence and Parikh equivalence, which ignores the ordering between symbols, coincide for this family. We conclude that, when assuming this weaker equivalence, the conversion algorithm is also optimal. Second, Parikh's theorem motivates the comparison of PDAs against finite state automata. In particular, the same family of unary PDAs gives a lower bound on the number of states of every Parikh-equivalent finite state automaton. Finally, we look into the case of unary deterministic PDAs. We show a new construction converting a unary deterministic PDA into an equivalent context-free grammar that achieves best known bounds.Comment: 17 pages, 2 figure

    Context-Bounded Verification of Context-Free Specifications

    Get PDF

    Edit Distance for Pushdown Automata

    Get PDF
    The edit distance between two words w1,w2w_1, w_2 is the minimal number of word operations (letter insertions, deletions, and substitutions) necessary to transform w1w_1 to w2w_2. The edit distance generalizes to languages L1,L2\mathcal{L}_1, \mathcal{L}_2, where the edit distance from L1\mathcal{L}_1 to L2\mathcal{L}_2 is the minimal number kk such that for every word from L1\mathcal{L}_1 there exists a word in L2\mathcal{L}_2 with edit distance at most kk. We study the edit distance computation problem between pushdown automata and their subclasses. The problem of computing edit distance to a pushdown automaton is undecidable, and in practice, the interesting question is to compute the edit distance from a pushdown automaton (the implementation, a standard model for programs with recursion) to a regular language (the specification). In this work, we present a complete picture of decidability and complexity for the following problems: (1)~deciding whether, for a given threshold kk, the edit distance from a pushdown automaton to a finite automaton is at most kk, and (2)~deciding whether the edit distance from a pushdown automaton to a finite automaton is finite.Comment: An extended version of a paper accepted to ICALP 2015 with the same title. The paper has been accepted to the LMCS journa

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

    Get PDF
    \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

    Analyzing Timed Systems Using Tree Automata

    Full text link
    Timed systems, such as timed automata, are usually analyzed using their operational semantics on timed words. The classical region abstraction for timed automata reduces them to (untimed) finite state automata with the same time-abstract properties, such as state reachability. We propose a new technique to analyze such timed systems using finite tree automata instead of finite word automata. The main idea is to consider timed behaviors as graphs with matching edges capturing timing constraints. When a family of graphs has bounded tree-width, they can be interpreted in trees and MSO-definable properties of such graphs can be checked using tree automata. The technique is quite general and applies to many timed systems. In this paper, as an example, we develop the technique on timed pushdown systems, which have recently received considerable attention. Further, we also demonstrate how we can use it on timed automata and timed multi-stack pushdown systems (with boundedness restrictions)

    Converting Nondeterministic Two-Way Automata into Small Deterministic Linear-Time Machines

    Full text link
    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

    IST Austria Technical Report

    Get PDF
    The edit distance between two words w1, w2 is the minimal number of word operations (letter insertions, deletions, and substitutions) necessary to transform w1 to w2. The edit distance generalizes to languages L1, L2, where the edit distance is the minimal number k such that for every word from L1 there exists a word in L2 with edit distance at most k. We study the edit distance computation problem between pushdown automata and their subclasses. The problem of computing edit distance to a pushdown automaton is undecidable, and in practice, the interesting question is to compute the edit distance from a pushdown automaton (the implementation, a standard model for programs with recursion) to a regular language (the specification). In this work, we present a complete picture of decidability and complexity for deciding whether, for a given threshold k, the edit distance from a pushdown automaton to a finite automaton is at most k

    Context-bounded Verification of Thread Pools

    Get PDF
    corecore