Advertisement

Equivalence Checking of Prefix-Free Transducers and Deterministic Two-Tape Automata

  • Vladimir A. ZakharovEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11417)

Abstract

Although the equivalence problem for finite transducers is undecidable in the general case, it was shown that for some classes of transducers (bounded ambiguous, bounded valued, of bounded length degree) this problem has effective solutions which, however, require significant computational costs. In this paper we distinguish a new class of transducers (we call them prefix-free since their transitions are characterized by this property of languages) such that (1) the equivalence problem for transducers in this class is decidable in quadratic time, and (2) this class does not fall into the scope of previously known decidable cases. We also show that deterministic two-tape finite state automata (2-DFSAs) are convertible into prefix-free transducers. Due to this translation we obtain a simple procedure for checking equivalence of 2-DFSAs in polynomial time. We believe that the further development of this approach could bring us to an efficient equivalence checking algorithm for deterministic multi-tape automata with an arbitrary number of tapes.

Keywords

Transducer Two-tape automaton Equivalence checking Prefix-free language Language equation Decision procedure 

References

  1. 1.
    Bird, M.: The equivalence problem for deterministic two-tape automata. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 7, 218–236 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blattner, M., Head, T.: Single-valued a-transducers. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 15, 310–327 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blattner, M., Head, T.: The decidability of equivalence for deterministic finite transducers. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 19, 45–49 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Culik, K., Karhumaki, J.: The equivalence of finite-valued transducers (on HDTOL languages) is decidable. Theor. Comput. Sci. 47, 71–84 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher, P.S., Rozenberg, A.L.: Multitape one-way nonwriting automata. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 2, 88–101 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman, E.P., Greibach, S.A.: A polynomial time algorithm for deciding the equivalence problem for 2-tape deterministic finite state acceptors. SIAM J. Comput. 11, 166–183 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffiths, T.: The unsolvability of the equivalence problem for \(\varepsilon \)-free nondeterministic generalized machines. J. ACM 15, 409–413 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gurari, E., Ibarra, O.: A note on finite-valued and finitely ambiguous transducers. Math. Syst. Theory 16, 61–66 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Han, Y.-S., Wood, D.: The generalization of generalized automata: expression automata. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Implementation and Application of Automata, pp. 156–166 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harju, T., Karhumaki, J.: The equivalence problem of multitape finite automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 78, 347–355 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohri, M.: Minimization algorithms for sequential transducers. Theor. Comput. Sci. 234, 177–201 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakarovitch J., de Souza R.: On the decomposition of k-valued rational relations. In: Proceedings of 25th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pp. 621–632 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sakarovitch J., de Souza R.: On the decidability of bounded valuedness for transducers. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on MFCS, pp. 588–600 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schutzenberger, M.P.: Sur les relations rationnelles. In: Proceedings of Conference on Automata Theory and Formal Languages, pp. 209–213 (1975)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Souza, R.: On the decidability of the equivalence for k-valued transducers. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Developments in Language Theory, pp. 252–263 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Souza, R.: On the decidability of the equivalence for a certain class of transducers. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Developments in Language Theory, pp. 478–489 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valiant, L.G.: The equivalence problem for deterministic finite-turn pushdown automata. Inf. Control 25, 123–133 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber, A.: On the valuedness of finite transducers. Acta Inform. 27, 749–780 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weber, A.: On the lengths of values in a finite transducer. Acta Inform. 29, 663–687 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber, A.: Decomposing finite-valued transducers and deciding their equivalence. SIAM J. Comput. 22, 175–202 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zakharov, V.A.: Equivalence checking problem for finite state transducers over semigroups. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Algebraic Informatics, vol. 9270, pp. 208–221 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations