Deterministic Ω automata vis-a-vis deterministic Buchi automata

  • Sriram C. Krishnan
  • Anuj Puri
  • Robert K. Brayton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 834)


ω-automata are finite state automata that accept infinite strings. The class of ω-regular languages is exactly the set accepted by nondeterministic Buchi and L- automata, and deterministic Müller, Rabin, and Streett automata. The languages accepted by deterministic Buchi automata (DBA) form a strict subset of the class of ω-regular languages. Landweber characterized deterministic Ω-automata whose languages are realizable by DBA. We provide an alternative proof of Landweber's theorem and give polynomial time algorithms to check if a language ℒ specified as a deterministic Muller, L-, Streett, or Rabin automaton can be realized as a DBA. We identify a sub-class of deterministic Müller, L-, Streett, and Rabin automata, called Buchi-type automata, which can be converted to an equivalent DBA on the same transition structure in polynomial time. For this subset of Ω-automata, our transformation yields the most efficient algorithms for checking language inclusion-important for computer verification of reactive systems. We prove that a deterministic L- (DLA) or Rabin automaton (DRA), unlike deterministic Muller or Streett automata, is Buchi-type if and only if its language is realizable as a DBA. Therefore, for languages that are realizable as DBA, DBA are as compact as DRA or DLA.


Acceptance Condition Finite State Automaton Strongly Connect Component Fairness Constraint State Transition Graph 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B.Alpern and F.B. Schneider. Recognizing Safety and Liveness. Distributed Computing, 2(3):117–126, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. A. Emerson and C. L. Lei. Modalities for Model Checking: Branching Time Logic Strikes Back. Science of Computer Programming, 8(3):275–306, June 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Aziz et al. HSIS: A BDD-Based Environment for Formal Verification. In Proc. of the Design Automation Conf., 1994. To Appear.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. C. Krishnan, A. Puri, and R. K. Brayton. Deterministic Ω-automata vis-a-vis Deterministic Buchi Automata. Technical report, Electronics Research Lab, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. preprint.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. P. Kurshan. Complementing Deterministic Büchi Automata in Polynomial Time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 35:59–71, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. P. Kurshan. Automata-Theoretic Verification of Coordinating Processes. Princeton University Press, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.O. Rabin and D.Scott. Finite Automata and their Decision Problems. In IBM Journal of Research and Development, volume 3, pages 115–125, 1959.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shmuel Safra. Complexity of Automata on Infinite Objects. PhD thesis, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, March 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Thomas. Automata on Infinite Objects. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Formal Models and Semantics, volume B of Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pages 133–191. Elsevier Science, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sriram C. Krishnan
    • 1
  • Anuj Puri
    • 1
  • Robert K. Brayton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EECSUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations