The Complexity of Compositions of Deterministic Tree Transducers

  • Sebastian Maneth
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2556)


Macro tree transducers can simulate most models of tree transducers (e.g., top-down and bottom-up tree transducers, attribute grammars, and pebble tree transducers which, in turn, can simulate all known models of XML transformers). The string languages generated by compositions of macro tree transducers (obtained by reading the leaves of the output trees) form a large class which contains, e.g., the IO hierarchy and the EDT0L control hierarchy. Consider an arbitrary composition τ of (deterministic) macro tree transducers. How dificult is it, for a given input tree s, to compute the translation t = τ (s)? It is shown that this problem can be solved (on a RAM) in time linear in the sum of the sizes of s and t. Moreover, the problem to determine, for a given t of size n, whether or not there is an input tree s such that t = τ (s) is in DSPACE(n); this means that output languages of compositions of macro tree transducers are deterministic context-sensitive. The involved technique of compressing intermediate results of the composition, also gives a new proof of the fact that the finiteness problem for τ ’s range is decidable.


Deterministic Macro Tree Transducers Complexity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Asv81]
    P.R.J. Asveld. Time and space complexity of inside-out macro languages. Internat. J. Comput. Math., 10:3–14, 1981.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bak78]
    B. S. Baker. Generalized syntax directed translation, tree transducers, and linear space. SIAM J. Comput., 7(3):376–391, 1978.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [CF82]
    B. Courcelle and P. Franchi-Zannettacci. Attribute grammars and recursive program schemes. TCS, 17:163–191 and 235–257, 1982.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [Dam82]
    W. Damm. The IO-and OI-hierarchies. TCS, 20:95–207, 1982.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [DE98]
    F. Drewes and J. Engelfriet. Decidability of finiteness of ranges of tree transductions. Inform. and Comput., 145:1–50, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [DJL88]
    P. Deransart, M. Jourdan, and B. Lorho. Attribute Grammars, Definitions and Bibliography. Number 323 in LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [EM]
    J. Engelfriet and S. Maneth. Work in progress.Google Scholar
  8. [EM99]
    J. Engelfriet and S. Maneth. Macro tree transducers, attribute grammars, and MSO definable tree translations. Inform. and Comput., 154:34–91, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [EM02]
    J. Engelfriet and S. Maneth. Output string languages of compositions of deterministic macro tree transducers. JCSS, 64(2):350–395, 2002.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [Eng75]
    J. Engelfriet. Bottom-up and top-down tree transformations–a comparison. Math. Systems Theory, 9(3):198–231, 1975.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [Eng86]
    J. Engelfriet. The complexity of languages generated by attribute grammars. SIAM J. Comput., 15(1):70–86, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. [EV85]
    J. Engelfriet and H. Vogler. Macro tree transducers. JCSS, 31:71–146, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [Fis68]
    M.J. Fischer. Grammars with macro-like productions. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Massachusetts, 1968.Google Scholar
  14. [Fül81]
    Z. Fülöp. On attributed tree transducers. Acta Cybernetica, 5:261–279, 1981.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [FV98]
    Z. Fülöp and H. Vogler. Syntax-Directed Semantics-Formal Models based on Tree Transducers. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science (W. Brauer, G. Rozenberg, A. Salomaa, eds.). Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. [GS84]
    F. Gécseg and M. Steinby. Tree Automata. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. [Knu68]
    D.E. Knuth. Semantics of context-free languages. Math. Systems Theory, 2:127–145, 1968. (Corrections in Math. Systems Theory, 5:95–96, 1971).zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [Küh98]
    A. Kühnemann. Benefits of tree transducers for optimizing functional programs. In V. Arvind and R. Ramanujam, editors, Proc. FST&TCS’98, volume 1530 of LNCS, pages 146–157. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [MSV00]
    T. Milo, D. Suciu, and V. Vianu. Typechecking for XML transformers. In Proc. PODS’2000, pages 11–22. ACM Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  20. [Pap94]
    C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. [Via01]
    V. Vianu. A Web Odyssey: From Codd to XML. In Proc. PODS’2001, pages 1–15. ACM Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. [Vog91]
    H. Vogler. Functional description of the contextual analysis in blockstructured programming languages: a case study of tree transducers. Science of Computer Programming, 16(3):251–275, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Wad90]
    P. Wadler. Deforestation: Transforming programs to eliminate trees. TCS, 73:231–248, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Maneth
    • 1
  1. 1.LIACSLeiden UniversityRA LeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations