1/25 An Infinite Automaton Characterization of Double Exponential Time Gennaro Parlato University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Università degli Studi.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CS 345: Chapter 9 Algorithmic Universality and Its Robustness
Advertisements

Lecture 24 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck
1 Nondeterministic Space is Closed Under Complement Presented by Jing Zhang and Yingbo Wang Theory of Computation II Professor: Geoffrey Smith.
1 1 CDT314 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 School of Innovation, Design and Engineering Mälardalen University 2012.
Pushdown Automata Chapter 12. Recognizing Context-Free Languages Two notions of recognition: (1) Say yes or no, just like with FSMs (2) Say yes or no,
Pushdown Automata Chapter 12. Recognizing Context-Free Languages We need a device similar to an FSM except that it needs more power. The insight: Precisely.
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen Department of Computer Science University of Texas-Pan American.
Pushdown Systems Koushik Sen EECS, UC Berkeley Slide Source: Sanjit A. Seshia.
The Language Theory of Bounded Context-Switching Gennaro Parlato (U. of Illinois, U.S.A.) Joint work with: Salvatore La Torre (U. of Salerno, Italy) P.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Complexity 12-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Non-Deterministic Space.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Decidable Languages Prof. Amos Israeli.
Finite Automata Great Theoretical Ideas In Computer Science Anupam Gupta Danny Sleator CS Fall 2010 Lecture 20Oct 28, 2010Carnegie Mellon University.
Introduction to Computability Theory
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture7: PushDown Automata (Part 1) Prof. Amos Israeli.
P, NP, PS, and NPS By Muhannad Harrim. Class P P is the complexity class containing decision problems which can be solved by a Deterministic Turing machine.
1 Linear Bounded Automata LBAs. 2 Linear Bounded Automata are like Turing Machines with a restriction: The working space of the tape is the space of the.
CS 302: Discrete Math II A Review. An alphabet Σ is a finite set (e.g., Σ = {0,1}) A string over Σ is a finite-length sequence of elements of Σ For x.
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
1 Languages and Finite Automata or how to talk to machines...
1/25 Context-Bounded Analysis of Concurrent Queue Systems Gennaro Parlato University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Università degli Studi di Salerno.
January 14, 2015CS21 Lecture 51 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 5 January 14, 2015.
A shorted version from: Anastasia Berdnikova & Denis Miretskiy.
Theory of Computing Lecture 20 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Theory of Computing Lecture 22 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Grammars, Languages and Finite-state automata Languages are described by grammars We need an algorithm that takes as input grammar sentence And gives a.
Model Checking Lecture 5. Outline 1 Specifications: logic vs. automata, linear vs. branching, safety vs. liveness 2 Graph algorithms for model checking.
Chapter 9 Turing Machine (TMs).
Scope-Bounded Pushdown Languages Salvatore La Torre Università degli Studi di Salerno joint work with Margherita Napoli Università degli Studi di Salerno.
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 7 Mälardalen University 2010.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing September 28, 2005.
1 Unit 1: Automata Theory and Formal Languages Readings 1, 2.2, 2.3.
Theory of Computing Lecture 17 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
1 Section 14.2 A Hierarchy of Languages Context-Sensitive Languages A context-sensitive grammar has productions of the form xAz  xyz, where A is a nonterminal.
Pushdown Automata CS 130: Theory of Computation HMU textbook, Chap 6.
Pushdown Automata (PDAs)
Computing languages by (bounded) local sets Dora Giammarresi Università di Roma “Tor Vergata” Italy.
Push-down Automata Section 3.3 Fri, Oct 21, 2005.
Theory of Computing Lecture 21 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Cs3102: Theory of Computation Class 14: Turing Machines Spring 2010 University of Virginia David Evans.
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 Mälardalen University 2010.
Decidable languages Section 4.1 CSC 4170 Theory of Computation.
Complexity and Computability Theory I Lecture #11 Instructor: Rina Zviel-Girshin Lea Epstein.
1 Linear Bounded Automata LBAs. 2 Linear Bounded Automata (LBAs) are the same as Turing Machines with one difference: The input string tape space is the.
Foundations of (Theoretical) Computer Science Chapter 2 Lecture Notes (Section 2.2: Pushdown Automata) Prof. Karen Daniels, Fall 2010 with acknowledgement.
Strings Basic data type in computational biology A string is an ordered succession of characters or symbols from a finite set called an alphabet Sequence.
1 Turing Machines and Equivalent Models Section 13.1 Turing Machines.
Finite Automata Great Theoretical Ideas In Computer Science Victor Adamchik Danny Sleator CS Spring 2010 Lecture 20Mar 30, 2010Carnegie Mellon.
THE CONVENTIONS 2 simple rules: Rule # 1: Rule # 2: RR “move to the right until you find  “ Note: first check. Then move (think of a “while”) “Never.
CSC 3130: Automata theory and formal languages Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Pushdown.
Pushdown Automata Hopcroft, Motawi, Ullman, Chap 6.
1 Finite Model Theory Lecture 5 Turing Machines and Finite Models.
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 12 Mälardalen University 2007.
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen.
Turing Machines Sections 17.6 – The Universal Turing Machine Problem: All our machines so far are hardwired. ENIAC
Pushdown Automata Chapter 12. Recognizing Context-Free Languages Two notions of recognition: (1) Say yes or no, just like with FSMs (2) Say yes or no,
CS6800 Advance Theory of Computation Spring 2016 Nasser Alsaedi
Recursively Enumerable and Recursive Languages. Definition: A language is recursively enumerable if some Turing machine accepts it.
Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation
Non Deterministic Automata
Pushdown Automata PDAs
Pushdown Automata PDAs
Pushdown Automata PDAs
Pushdown Automata PDAs
Jaya Krishna, M.Tech, Assistant Professor
Alternating tree Automata and Parity games
Non Deterministic Automata
Decidability and Undecidability
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Presentation transcript:

1/25 An Infinite Automaton Characterization of Double Exponential Time Gennaro Parlato University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Università degli Studi di Salerno Salvatore La Torre (U. Salerno) P. Madhusudan (U. Illinois U-C)

2/25 Infinite automata  Input alphabet   Fix an alphabet  States – all words *  Initial and final states are defined by two regular languages INIT, FINAL  transitions defined using rewriting: for each a   there is a transducer T a transforming words to words u u’ iff T a transforms u to u’ a

3/25 Example: Infinite automaton for { a n b n c n | n>0}  T a defines { (x n, x n+1 ) / n > 0}  {($, x)}  T b defines { (y m x n, y m+1 x n-1 ) / n > 0, m  0}  T c defines { (y m x n, y m+1 x n-1 ) / n > 0, m  0} $ x xx xxx  yxx yyx yyy yx yy y a a a b b b b b b c c c

4/25 Infinite automata using regular trasducers  Transitions defined using regular trasducers A regular trasducer reads an input word and writes an output word using finitely many states A regular trasducer has edges of the form q –a/b  q’ where a,b є  {} Eg. {(a n,(bc) n )} is a regular relation q0q0 q1q1 a/b  /c

5/25 Infinite automata & computational complexity  A remarkable theorem (Morvan-Stirling ’01) Note: no ostensible bounds of time or space are placed on the machine! Theorem Infinite automaton with regular transducers precisely define context-sensitive languages (i.e. NLINSPACE)

6/25 Infinite automata with pushdown transducers  Consider infinite automata with rewriting using pushdown automata  Pushdown transducer transform words to words using a finite-state control and a work-stack  Eg. {(a n, b n c n ) / n > 0 } can be effected (non regular relation)  Infinite automata with pushdown transducer relations define r.e. languages (undecidable)

7/25 Infinite automata with restricted pushdown transducers  Restricted pushdown transducers: Each transducer can switch between read the input tape and popping the stack only a bounded number of times Still powerful  Eg. {(a n, b n c n ) / n > 0 } can still be effected Theorem Infinite automata with restricted pushdown transducers define precisely the class 2ETIME ( in 2 2 O(n) time )  Note: Again, no ostensible space or time limits  States on a run can run for a very long time  A logical characterization of 2ETIME by restricting the power of rewriting

8/25 Known results  Rational graphs capture Context-Sensitive Languages (Morvan-Stirling, 2001)  Synchronized rational graphs are sufficient to capture CSL’s (Rispal, 2002)  Term-automatic graphs capture ETIME (Meyer, 2007)  Prefix-recognizable graphs capture Context-Free Languages (Caucal, 1996)  Survey on Infinite Automata (Thomas, 2001)

9/25 Outline of the talk  Infinite automata  2ETIME Upper Bound  2ETIME Lower Bound  Conclusions

10/25 Upper Bound  Two steps: 1.(polynomial time) reduction of membership for infinite automata with restricted pushdown transducers to emptiness for bounded-phase multi-stack pushdown automata (k-MPA) 2.2Etime solution of k-MPA emptiness Improvement of the 2 |A| 2 O(poly(k)) solution given in [ LICS’07]

11/25 Bounded-phase multi-stack pushdown automata [La Torre, P.Madhusudan, Parlato, LICS’07] finite control A phase is a sub-run where only A unique stack can be popped all stacks can be pushed onto  Finite set of states Q  An initial state q 0  Q  Final states F  Q  Actions: internal move push onto one stack pop from one stack phase-switch phase-switch RUN phase1 phase2 phase3 push2push1push2 pop1 pop2push1 pop1 push1 pop1

12/25 Simulating of the Inf. Aut. on w=a 1 a 2 … a m with an MPA  We reduce membership of BPTIAs to emptiness of k-MPAs Reduction a1a1 u0u0 u1u1 umum u2u2 a2a2 u m-1 amam c1c1 c1c1 Ta1Ta1 c2c2 Ta2Ta2 cmcm TamTam c2c2 cmcm INITFINALRES original stackS IN S OUT control states RES Guess u 0 є L(INIT) and push it into S IN For every i=1,2, …, m: 1) simulate T a i reading from S IN and writing onto S OUT 2) Empty the original stack 3) Move S OUT into S IN Accept if u m є L(FINAL) can be accomplished with O(|w|) phases

13/25 Emptiness for k-MPAs  Reduction to emptiness of tree automata  The key idea is the use of Stack trees

14/25 a e b a a’ a’ b a b’ e b’ a’ a, a’ – push/pop 1 st st b, b’ – push/pop 2 nd st e – internal Nested edges become local Linear edges lost!! Stack Trees [LICS’07] (a’,1) (a,1) (e,1) (a’, 1) (b,1) (a,1) (a’,3) 12 (b’,2) 11 (b’,2) (e,2)

15/25 Emptiness for k-MPAs  Reduction to emptiness of tree automata  The key idea is the use of stack-trees  Two main parts: the set of stack-trees is regular  linear order (Tree Aut. of size 2 O(k) ) Simulation of a k-MPA on the stack-trees  Successor (Tree Walking Aut. of size 2 O(k) )

16/25 linear order (x<y) a) x and y in diff phases c) x and y of the same phase -- easy: phase(x) < phase(y) but in diff subtrees: -- hard: b) x and y of same phase and same tree –- easy x precedes y in the prefix traversal of the tree x p y where p x =ParentRoot(x) p y = ParentRoot (y) p x > p y x < y Intuition for case c) push push pop pop … p y … p x … root(x) … x … root(y) … y

17/25 a) x and y in diff phases c) x and y of the same phase -- easy: phase(x) < phase(y) but in diff subtrees: -- hard: b) x and y of same phase and same tree –- easy x precedes y in the prefix traversal of the tree … … zyzy zxzx ≤ #phases Tree automata for the linear order xy Inductive definition Base case : a) and b) Inductive step : c) Tree automaton for c) Simulate the TA for a) or b) to check z x, z y Check if z x reach x and z y reaches y with the same phase sequence (guessed in the root)  State space 2 O(k) p x p y x p y where p x =ParentRoot(x) p y = ParentRoot (y)

18/25 Successor Motivation for case c) push push pop pop root x x y … p y … … p x a)if x and y in diff phases --easy EndPhase(x) and y=NextPhase(x) b) If x and y of same phase and same tree –- easy x is the predecessor of y in the prefix traversal of the tree c) x and y of the same phase but in diff subtrees: --hard z  ParentRoot(x); z’  Predecessor(z) while phase T (RightChild(z’)) ≠ phase T (x) z’  Predecessor(z); y = RightChild(z’);}

19/25 Tree walking automaton for Successor Procedure Successor(x) if EndPhase(x) then return NextPhase(phase T (x)); elseif (y  PrefixSucc(x) exists) then return(y); else { z  ParentRoot(x); z’  Predecessor(z) while phase T (RightChild(z’)) ≠ phase T (x) z’  Predecessor(z); return RightChild(z’);} Procedure Predecessor(x) if BeginPhase(x) then return PrevPhase(phase T (x)); elseif (y  PrefixPred(x) exists) then return(y); else { z  ParentRoot(x); z’  Successor(z) while phase T (RightChild(z’)) ≠ phase T (x) z’  Successor(z); return RightChild(z’);}  Look at Successor and Predecessor as a recursive program P  At most k (=#phases) alive calls at any time  Since k is fixed, P can be executed with finite memory O(k)  The tree walking automata simulates P in its control  Size of the tree walking automata = 2 O(k)

20/25 Outline of the talk  Infinite automata  2ETIME Upper Bound  2ETIME Lower Bound  Conclusions

21/25 Lower bound  Direct simulation of Turing machines is unfeasible: Turing machines are usually two way and have read and write moves infinite automata accept a word w in “real-time”, i.e. in |w| steps double exponentially many steps of computation should be carried out by a single bounded-phase pushdown rewriting

22/25 Lower bound (reduction)  Reduction from the membership problem for alternating machines working in 2 O(w) space to the membership problem for BPTAs a1a1 amam Guess a TM run on w a2a2 … Check all consecutive confs are correct Extract all the consecutive confs from the TM run

23/25 Checking the moves The sequence of moves: #u 1 #v 1 #u 2 #v 2... #u m #v m  Checking if u i  v i is similar to checking if c = c’  In each step transform every #u i #v i into two pairs of half size. Repeat until we get only pairs of length 1. (O(|w|) steps)  For j=1,…,|w| For i=1,…,m  Push all even symbols of u i /v i onto the stack  Write all odd symbols of u i /v i on the output tape Copy the stack content on the output tape  Check symbol equality #u 1 #v 1 #u 2 #v 2... #u m #v m #even(v m ) #even(u m )... #even(v 2 ) #even(u 2 ) #even(v 1 ) #even(u 1 ) #odd(v m ) #odd(u m )... #odd(v 2 ) #odd(u 2 ) #odd(v 1 ) #odd(u 1 ) output tape phases required log 2 |w| = |w|

24/25 Outline of the talk  Infinite automata  2ETIME Upper Bound  2ETIME Lower Bound  Conclusions

25/25 Conclusions  Characterization of 2ETIME with infinite automata  Alternate characterizations of complexity classes using rewriting theory  Rewriting is classic (Thue, Post) but never applied to complexity theory  Exact computational complexity of the emptiness problem for bounded-phase multi-stack pushdown automata

26/25 Conclusions  Can we show alternate proofs of classic results using infinite automata? Eg. NL=co-NL NLINSPACE= co-NLINSPACE …  Can we capture P or NP?  Expressive power of deterministic infinite automata