Advertisement

Limited Nondeterminism of Input-Driven Pushdown Automata: Decidability and Complexity

  • Yo-Sub Han
  • Sang-Ki Ko
  • Kai SalomaaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11612)

Abstract

We study the decidability and computational complexity for several decision problems related to limited nondeterminism of finite-state automata equipped with a pushdown stack. Ambiguity and tree width are two measures of nondeterminism considered in the literature. As a main result, we prove that the problem of deciding whether or not the tree width of a nondeterministic pushdown automaton is finite is decidable in polynomial time. We also prove that the k-tree width problem for nondeterministic input-driven pushdown automata (respectively, nondeterministic finite automata) is complete for exponential time (respectively, for polynomial space).

Keywords

Nondeterminism Tree width Ambiguity Input-driven pushdown automata 

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Visibly pushdown languages. In: Babai, L. (ed.) Proceedings 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2004), pp. 202–211. ACM, New York (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1007352.1007390
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Adding nesting structure to words. J. ACM 56(3), 16:1–16:43 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1516512.1516518
  3. 3.
    Björklund, H., Martens, W.: The tractability frontier for NFA minimization. J. Comput. System Sci. 78(1), 198–210 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caralp, M., Reynier, P.-A., Talbot, J.-M.: Visibly pushdown automata with multiplicities: finiteness and K-boundedness. In: Yen, H.-C., Ibarra, O.H. (eds.) DLT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7410, pp. 226–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31653-1_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan, T., Ibarra, O.H.: On the finite-valuedness problem for sequential machines. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 23(1), 95–101 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernau, H., Krebs, A.: Problems on finite automata and the exponential time hypothesis. Algorithms 10(1), 24:1–24:25 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3390/a10010024
  7. 7.
    Gécseg, F., Steinby, M.: Tree languages. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, pp. 1–68. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59126-6_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldstine, J., Kappes, M., Kintala, C.M.R., Leung, H., Malcher, A., Wotschke, D.: Descriptional complexity of machines with limited resources. J. UCS 8(2), 193–234 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-008-02-0193MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstine, J., Leung, H., Wotschke, D.: Measuring nondeterminism in pushdown automata. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 71(4), 440–466 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrison, M.: Introduction to Formal Language Theory. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hopcroft, J., Ullman, J.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hromkovic, J., Seibert, S., Karhumäki, J., Klauck, H., Schnitger, G.: Communication complexity method for measuring nondeterminism in finite automata. Inform. Comput. 172(2), 202–217 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.2001.3069MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozen, D.: Lower bounds for natural proof systems. In: Proceedings of 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (SFCS 1977), pp. 254–266. IEEE Computer Society (1977).  https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1977.16
  14. 14.
    Leung, H.: Separating exponentially ambiguous finite automata from polynomially ambiguous finite automata. SIAM J. Comput. 27(4), 1073–1082 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mehlhorn, K.: Pebbling mountain ranges and its application to DCFL-recognition. In: de Bakker, J., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 1980. LNCS, vol. 85, pp. 422–435. Springer, Heidelberg (1980).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-10003-2_89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Okhotin, A., Salomaa, K.: Complexity of input-driven pushdown automata. SIGACT News 45(2), 47–67 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2636805.2636821MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Okhotin, A., Salomaa, K.: Input-driven pushdown automata with limited nondeterminism. In: Shur, A.M., Volkov, M.V. (eds.) DLT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8633, pp. 84–102. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09698-8_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palioudakis, A., Salomaa, K., Akl, S.G.: State complexity of finite tree width NFAs. J. Autom. Lang. Comb. 17(2), 245–264 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shallit, J.O.: A Second Course in Formal Languages and Automata Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber, A., Seidl, H.: On the degree of ambiguity of finite automata. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 88(2), 325–349 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wood, D.: Theory of Computation. Harper & Row (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceYonsei UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.AI Research CenterKorea Electronics Technology InstituteSeongnamRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.School of ComputingQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations