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

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

Regular Languages: To Finite Automata and Beyond (Invited Talk)

It is well known that the class of regular languages coincides with the class of languages recognized by finite automata. Nevertheless, many other characterizations of this class in terms of computational devices and generative models are present in the literature. For example, by suitably restricting more powerful models such as context-free grammars, pushdown automata, and Turing machines, it is possible to obtain formal models that generate or recognize regular languages only. These restricted formalisms provide alternative representations of regular languages that may be significantly more concise than other models that share the same expressive power. The goal of this work is to provide an overview of old and recent results on these formal systems from a descriptional complexity perspective, that is by considering the relationships between the sizes of such devices. 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

Non-Self-Embedding Grammars, Constant Height Pushdown Automata, and Limited Automata

Non-self-embedding grammars are a restriction of contextfree grammars which does not allow to describe recursive structures and, hence, which characterizes only the class of regular languages. A double exponential gap in size between non-self-embedding grammars and deterministic finite automata is known. The same size gap is also known from constant height pushdown automata and 1-limited automata to equivalent deterministic finite automata. Constant height pushdown automata and 1-limited automata are compared with non-self-embedding grammars. It is proved that non-self-embedding grammars and constant height pushdown automata are polynomially related in size. However, they can be exponentially larger than 1-limited automata

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.</p

Minimal and Reduced Reversible Automata

International audienceA condition characterizing the class of regular languages which have several nonisomorphic minimal reversible automata is presented. The condition concerns the structure of the minimum automaton accepting the language under consideration. It is also observed that there exist reduced reversible automata which are not minimal, in the sense that all the automata obtained by merging some of their equivalent states are irreversible. Furthermore, it is proved that if the minimum deterministic automaton accepting a reversible language contains a loop in the “irreversible part” then it is always possible to construct infinitely many reduced reversible automata accepting such a language

Minimal and Reduced Reversible Automata

International audienceA condition characterizing the class of regular languages which have several nonisomorphic minimal reversible automata is presented. The condition concerns the structure of the minimum automaton accepting the language under consideration. It is also observed that there exist reduced reversible automata which are not minimal, in the sense that all the automata obtained by merging some of their equivalent states are irreversible. Furthermore, it is proved that if the minimum deterministic automaton accepting a reversible language contains a loop in the “irreversible part” then it is always possible to construct infinitely many reduced reversible automata accepting such a language