Structural complexity of ω-automata
In this paper we relate expressiveness of ω-automata to their complexity. Expressiveness is related to the different subclasses of the ω-regular languages that are accepted by automata that arise by restrictions on the acceptance conditions used. For example, different subclasses of the ω-regular languages arise from identifying the ω-languages with different classes and levels in the Borel hierarchy. Within the class of ω-regular languages, Wagner and Kaminski identified a strict hierarchy of languages induced by restricting the number of pairs allowed in a deterministic Rabin automaton (DRA).
Complexity relates to the smallest size automaton required to realize an ω-regular language. Safra shows that there are ω-regular languages for which deterministic Streett automata (DSA) are exponentially smaller than nondeterministic Buchi automata; in contrast, we show that for every DSA or DRA whose language is in class G δ , there exists a DBA of size linear in the original automaton. We show in particular that the language of a DRA is in class G δ if and only if the language can be realized as a DBA on the same transition structure as the DRA. We present a simple construction to transform a DRA with h pairs and n states to an equivalent DRA with O(n.h k ) states and k pairs (i.e. DR(n,h)→ DR(n.h k , k)), where k is the Rabin Index (RI) of the language-the minimum number of pairs required to realize the language as a DRA. We also present a construction to translate a DSA into a minimum-pair DRA, achieving a transformation DS(n,h)→DR(n.h k , r), where k is the Streett index (SI), and r the RI of the language.
We prove that it is NP-hard to determine the RI (SI) of a language specified by a DRA (DSA). However, for a DRA (DSA) with h pairs, determining whether the RI (SI) is h, or any constant c, is in polynomial time.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.O. Carton. Chain Automata. In IFIP 13th World Computer Congress, pages 451–458, August 1994.Google Scholar
- 2.E. S. Chang, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. The Safety-Progress Classification. In F. L. Bauer, W. Bauer, and H. Schwichtenberg, editors, Logic and Algebra of Specification, pages 143–202, 1993.Google Scholar
- 3.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.Google Scholar
- 4.M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
- 5.M. Kaminski. A Classification of ω-regular languages. Theoretical Computer Science, 36:217–229, 1985.Google Scholar
- 6.S. C. Krishnan, A. Puri, and R. K. Brayton. Deterministic ω-automata vis-a-vis Deterministic Buchi Automata. In Algorithms and Computation, volume 834 of LNCS, pages 378–386. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
- 7.R. P. Kurshan. Automata-Theoretic Verification of Coordinating Processes. Princeton University Press, 1994. To appear.Google Scholar
- 8.Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
- 9.Kenneth L. McMillan. Personal communication, August 1994.Google Scholar
- 10.Shmuel Safra. Complexity of Automata on Infinite Objects. PhD thesis, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, March 1989.Google Scholar
- 11.L. Staiger. Research in the theory of ω-languages. Journal of Information Processing and Cybernetics, 23:415–439, 1987.Google Scholar
- 12.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
- 13.K. Wagner. On ω-Regular Sets. Information and Control, 43:123–177, 1979.Google Scholar