A Note on Decidable Separability by Piecewise Testable Languages
- 4 Citations
- 494 Downloads
Abstract
The separability problem for word languages of a class \(\mathcal {C}\) by languages of a class \(\mathcal {S}\) asks, for two given languages I and E from \(\mathcal {C}\), whether there exists a language S from \(\mathcal {S}\) that includes I and excludes E, that is, \(I \subseteq S\) and \(S\cap E = \emptyset \). It is known that separability for context-free languages by any class containing all definite languages (such as regular languages) is undecidable. We show that separability of context-free languages by piecewise testable languages is decidable. This contrasts with the fact that testing if a context-free language is piecewise testable is undecidable. We generalize this decidability result by showing that, for every full trio (a class of languages that is closed under rather weak operations) which has decidable diagonal problem, separability with respect to piecewise testable languages is decidable. Examples of such classes are the languages defined by labeled vector addition systems and the languages accepted by higher order pushdown automata of order two. The proof goes through a result which is of independent interest and shows that, for any kind of languages I and E, separability can be decided by testing the existence of common patterns in I and E.
Keywords
Regular Language Factorization Pattern Boolean Combination Finite Alphabet Definite LanguageNotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Tomáš Masopust for pointing us to [16] and Thomas Place for pointing out to us that determining if a given context-free language is piecewise testable is undecidable. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for many helpful remarks that simplified proofs. We are much indebted to Georg Zetzsche for many useful remarks and most of all for sending us a simple proof that showed that, for full trios, separability by PTL implies decidability of the diagonal problem, thereby turning Theorem 2 into an equivalence. We plan to incorporate his proof in the full version of this paper.
References
- 1.Aho, A.V.: Indexed grammars – an extension of context-free grammars. J. ACM 15(4), 647–671 (1968)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 2.Almeida, J.: Finite Semigroups and Universal Algebra, Volume 3 of Series in Algebra. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (1994) Google Scholar
- 3.Antonopoulos, T., Hovland, D., Martens, W., Neven, F.: Deciding twig-definability of node selecting tree automata. In: ICDT, pp. 61–73 (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Arfi, M.: Polynomial operations on rational languages. In: STACS, pp. 198–206 (1987)Google Scholar
- 5.Benedikt, M., Segoufin, L.: Regular tree languages definable in FO and in FO\(_{\rm mod}\). ACM Trans. Comput. Logi 11(1), 4:1–4:32 (2009)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 6.Berstel, J.: Transductions and context-free languages. Teubner, Stuttgart (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bojańczyk, M., Idziaszek, T.: Algebra for infinite forests with an application to the temporal logic EF. In: Bravetti, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) CONCUR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5710, pp. 131–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bojanczyk, M., Segoufin, L., Straubing, H.: Piecewise testable tree languages. LMCS 8(3), 1–20 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 9.Bonnet, R., Finkel, A., Leroux, J., Zeitoun, M.: Model checking vector addition systems with one zero-test. LMCS 8(2), 1–25 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 10.Czerwiński, W., Martens, W., Masopust, T.: Efficient separability of regular languages by subsequences and suffixes. In: Fomin, F.V., Freivalds, R., Kwiatkowska, M., Peleg, D. (eds.) ICALP 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7966, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Esparza, J., Ganty, P., Kiefer, S., Luttenberger, M.: Parikh’s theorem: a simple and direct automaton construction. Inf. Process. Lett. 111(12), 614–619 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ginsburg, S., Greibach, S.A.: Abstract families of languages. In: SWAT / FOCS, pp. 128–139 (1967)Google Scholar
- 13.Ginsburg, S., Spanier, E.H.: Semigroups, Presburger formulas, and languages. Pacific J. Math. 16, 285–296 (1966)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Greibach, S.: A note on undecidable properties of formal languages. Math. Sys. Theor. 2(1), 1–6 (1968)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 15.Hofman, P., Martens, W.: Separability by short subsequences and subwords. In: ICDT, pp. 230–246 (2015)Google Scholar
- 16.Hunt III, H.B.: On the decidability of grammar problems. J. ACM 29(2), 429–447 (1982)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 17.Jantzen, M.: On the hierarchy of Petri net languages. RAIRO Informatique Théorique 13(1), 19–30 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 18.Kosaraju, S.R.: Decidability of reachability in vector addition systems (preliminary version). In: STOC, pp. 267–281 (1982)Google Scholar
- 19.Leroux, J.: The general vector addition system reachability problem by Presburger inductive invariants. LMCS 6(3), 1–25 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 20.Maslov, A.N.: Multilevel stack automata. Probl. Inf. Transm. 12(1), 38–42 (1976)Google Scholar
- 21.Mayr, E.W.: An algorithm for the general Petri net reachability problem. SIAM J. Comput. 13(3), 441–460 (1984)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 22.McNaughton, R.: Algebraic decision procedures for local testability. Math. Syst. Theor. 8(1), 60–76 (1974)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 23.Parikh, R.: On context-free languages. J. ACM 13(4), 570–581 (1966)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 24.Pin, J.-E., Weil, P.: Polynomial closure and unambiguous product. Theory Comput. Syst. 30(4), 383–422 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 25.Place, T., van Rooijen, L., Zeitoun, M.: Separating regular languages by locally testable and locally threshold testable languages. In: FSTTCS, pp. 363–375 (2013)Google Scholar
- 26.Place, T., van Rooijen, L., Zeitoun, M.: Separating regular languages by piecewise testable and unambiguous languages. In: Chatterjee, K., Sgall, J. (eds.) MFCS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8087, pp. 729–740. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Place, T., Zeitoun, M.: Going higher in the first-order quantifier alternation hierarchy on words. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8573, pp. 342–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
- 28.Place, T., Zeitoun, M.: Separating regular languages with first-order logic. In: CSL-LICS, pp. 75:1–75:10. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
- 29.Schützenberger, M.P.: On finite monoids having only trivial subgroups. Inf. Control 8(2), 190–194 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 30.Simon, I.: Piecewise testable events. In: Simon, I. (ed.) Automata Theory and Formal Languages. LNCS, pp. 214–222. springer, Heidelberg (1975) Google Scholar
- 31.Simon, I.: Factorization forests of finite height. Theor. Comput. Sci. 72(1), 65–94 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 32.Straubing, H.: Semigroups and languages of dot-depth two. Theor. Comput. Sci. 58, 361–378 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 33.Szymanski, T., Williams, J.: Noncanonical extensions of bottom-up parsing techniques. SIAM J. Comput. 5(2), 231–250 (1976)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 34.Zalcstein, Y.: Locally testable languages. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 6(2), 151–167 (1972)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 35.Zetzsche, G.: Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
- 36.Zetzsche, G.: An approach to computing downward closures. In: ICALP (2015). To appear, Accessed on http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01068