Visibly Pushdown Automata: From Language Equivalence to Simulation and Bisimulation

  • Jiří Srba
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4207)

Abstract

We investigate the possibility of (bi)simulation-like preorder/equivalence checking on the class of visibly pushdown automata and its natural subclasses visibly BPA (Basic Process Algebra) and visibly one-counter automata. We describe generic methods for proving complexity upper and lower bounds for a number of studied preorders and equivalences like simulation, completed simulation, ready simulation, 2-nested simulation preorders/equivalences and bisimulation equivalence. Our main results are that all the mentioned equivalences and preorders are EXPTIME-complete on visibly pushdown automata, PSPACE-complete on visibly one-counter automata and P-complete on visibly BPA. Our PSPACE lower bound for visibly one-counter automata improves also the previously known DP-hardness results for ordinary one-counter automata and one-counter nets. Finally, we study regularity checking problems for visibly pushdown automata and show that they can be decided in polynomial time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aceto, L., Fokkink, W., Ingólfsdóttir, A.: 2-nested simulation is not finitely equationally axiomatizable. In: Ferreira, A., Reichel, H. (eds.) STACS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2010, pp. 39–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Madhusudan, P.: A temporal logic of nested calls and returns. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 467–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Kumar, V., Madhusudan, P., Viswanathan, M.: Congruences for visibly pushdown languages. In: Caires, L., Italiano, G.F., Monteiro, L., Palamidessi, C., Yung, M. (eds.) ICALP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3580, pp. 1102–1114. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Visibly pushdown languages. In: Proc. of STOC 2004, pp. 202–211. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balcazar, J., Gabarro, J., Santha, M.: Deciding bisimilarity is P-complete. Formal Aspects of Computing 4(6A), 638–648 (1992)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bárány, V., Löding, C., Serre, O.: Regularity problems for visibly pushdown languages. In: Durand, B., Thomas, W. (eds.) STACS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3884, pp. 420–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouajjani, A., Esparza, J., Maler, O.: Reachability analysis of pushdown automata: Application to model-checking. In: Mazurkiewicz, A., Winkowski, J. (eds.) CONCUR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1243, pp. 135–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkart, O., Caucal, D., Steffen, B.: An elementary decision procedure for arbitrary context-free processes. In: Hájek, P., Wiedermann, J. (eds.) MFCS 1995. LNCS, vol. 969, pp. 423–433. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burkart, O., Caucal, D., Steffen, B.: Bisimulation collapse and the process taxonomy. In: Sassone, V., Montanari, U. (eds.) CONCUR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1119, pp. 247–262. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groote, J.F., Hüttel, H.: Undecidable equivalences for basic process algebra. Information and Computation 115(2), 353–371 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzer, M.: On emptiness and counting for alternating finite automata. In: Proc. of DLT 1995, pp. 88–97. World Scientific, Singapore (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jančar, P.: Decidability of bisimilarity for one-counter processes. Information and Computation 158(1), 1–17 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jančar, P., Kučera, A., Moller, F., Sawa, Z.: DP lower bounds for equivalence-checking and model-checking of one-counter automata. Information and Computation 188(1), 1–19 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jančar, P., Moller, F., Sawa, Z.: Simulation problems for one-counter machines. In: Bartosek, M., Tel, G., Pavelka, J. (eds.) SOFSEM 1999. LNCS, vol. 1725, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jančar, P., Srba, J.: Highly undecidable questions for process algebras. In: Proc. of TCS 2004, pp. 507–520. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional μ-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 27, 333–354 (1983)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kučera, A., Mayr, R.: On the complexity of semantic equivalences for pushdown automata and BPA. In: Diks, K., Rytter, W. (eds.) MFCS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2420, pp. 433–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murawski, A., Walukiewicz, I.: Third-order idealized algol with iteration is decidable. In: Sassone, V. (ed.) FOSSACS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3441, pp. 202–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paige, R., Tarjan, R.E.: Three partition refinement algorithms. SIAM Journal of Computing 16(6), 973–989 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pitcher, C.: Visibly pushdown expression effects for XML stream processing. In: Proc. of PLAN-X, pp. 5–19 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sawa, Z., Jančar, P.: P-hardness of equivalence testing on finite-state processes. In: Pacholski, L., Ružička, P. (eds.) SOFSEM 2001. LNCS, vol. 2234, pp. 326–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sénizergues, G.: Decidability of bisimulation equivalence for equational graphs of finite out-degree. In: Proc. of FOCS 1998, pp. 120–129. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Serre, O.: Parity games played on transition graphs of one-counter processes. In: Aceto, L., Ingólfsdóttir, A. (eds.) FOSSACS 2006. LNCS, vol. 3921, pp. 337–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Srba, J.: Strong bisimilarity and regularity of basic process algebra is PSPACE-hard. In: Widmayer, P., Triguero, F., Morales, R., Hennessy, M., Eidenbenz, S., Conejo, R. (eds.) ICALP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2380, pp. 716–727. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walukiewicz, I.: Pushdown processes: Games and model-checking. Information and Computation 164(2), 234–263 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiří Srba
    • 1
  1. 1.BRICS,Department of Computer ScienceAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations