Advertisement

Automatic Control and Computer Sciences

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 523–530 | Cite as

On the Minimization of Finite State Transducers over Semigroups

  • V. A. Zakharov
  • G. G. Temerbekova
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Finite state transducers over semigroups are regarded as a formal model of sequential reactive programs that operate in the interaction with the environment. At receiving a piece of data a program performs a sequence of actions and displays the current result. Such programs usually arise at implementation of computer drivers, on-line algorithms, control procedures. In many cases verification of such programs can be reduced to minimization and equivalence checking problems for finite state transducers. Minimization of a transducer over a semigroup is performed in three stages. At first the greatest common left-divisors are computed for all states of a transducer, next a transducer is brought to a reduced form by pulling all such divisors “upstream,” and finally a minimization algorithm for finite state automata is applied to the reduced transducer.

Keywords

reactive system transducer semigroup minimization equivalence checking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alur, R. and Cerny, P., Streaming transducers for algorithmic verification of single-pass list-processing programs, Proc. of 38th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 2011, pp. 599–610.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blattner, M. and Head, T., Single-valued a-transducers, J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 1977, vol. 15, pp. 310–327.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blattner, M. and Head, T., The decidability of equivalence for deterministic finite transducers, J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 1979, vol. 19, pp. 45–49.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beal, M.-P. and Carton, O., Computing the prefix of an automaton, Theor. Inf. Appl., 2000, vol. 34, pp. 503–514.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Culik, K. and Karhumaki, J., The equivalence of finite-valued transducers (on HDTOL languages) is decidable, Theor. Comput. Sci., 1986, vol. 47, pp. 71–84.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diekert, V. and Metivier, Y., Partial commutation and traces, in Handbook of Formal Languages, 1997, vol. 3, pp. 457–533.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eisner, J., Simpler and more general minimization for weighted finite-state automata, Proc. of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, E.P. and Greibach, S.A., A polynomial time algorithm for deciding the equivalence problem for 2-tape deterministic finite state acceptors, SIAM J. Comput., 1982, vol. 11, pp. 166–183.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffiths, T., The unsolvability of the equivalence problem for ε-free nondeterministic generalized machines, J. ACM, 1968, vol. 15, pp. 409–413.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mohri, M., Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing, Comput. Linguist., 1997, vol. 23, pp. 269–311.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohri, M., Minimization algorithms for sequential transducers, Theor. Comput. Sci., 2000, vol. 234, pp. 177–201.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reutenauer, C. and Schuzenberger, M.P., Minimization of rational word functions, SIAM J. Comput., 1991, vol. 30, pp. 669–685.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shofrutt, C., Minimizing subsequential transducers: A survey, Theor. Comput. Sci., 2003, vol. 292, pp. 131–143.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thakkar, J., Kanade, A., and Alur, R., A transducer-based algorithmic verification of retransmission protocols over noisy channels, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2013, vol. 7892, pp. 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veanes, M., Hooimeijer, P., Livshits, B., et al., Symbolic finite state transducers: Algorithms and applications, ACM SIGPLAN Not., 2012, vol. 147, pp. 137–150.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watson, B.W., A taxonomy of finite automata minimization algorithm, Computing Science Report. Eindhoven University of Technology, 93/44, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, A., Decomposing finite-valued transducers and deciding their equivalence, SIAM J. Comput., 1993, vol. 22, pp. 175–202.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolper, P. and Boigelot, B., Verifying systems with infinite but regular state spaces, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 1998, vol. 1427, pp. 88–97.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zakharov, V.A., Equivalence checking problem for finite state transducers over semigroups, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2015, vol. 9270, pp. 208–221.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zakharov, V.A. and Podymov, V.V., On the application of equivalence checking algorithms for program minimization, Proc. Inst. Syst. Progr., 2015, vol. 27, pp. 145–174.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Allerton Press, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computational Mathematics and CyberneticsMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations