Propositional Automata and Cell Automata: Representational Frameworks for Discrete Dynamic Systems

  • Eric Schkufza
  • Nathaniel Love
  • Michael Genesereth
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5360)


This paper describes and compares two simple, powerful models for formalizing the behavior of discrete dynamic systems: Propositional and Cell Automata. Propositional Automata encode state in terms of boolean propositions, and behavior in terms of boolean gates and latches. Cell Automata generalize the propositional model by encoding state in terms of multi-valued cells, and behavior in terms of comparators and selectors that respond to cell values. While the models are equally expressive, Cell Automata are computationally more efficient than Propositional Automata. Additionally, arbitrary Propositional Automata can be converted to optimal Cell Automata with identical behavioral properties, and Cell Automata can be encoded as a Propositional Automata with only logarithmic increase in size.


Connectivity Function Discrete Dynamic System Business Process Execution Language Abstract State Machine Base Proposition 
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.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson, London (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nowack, A.: A guarded fragment for abstract state machines. In: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2004 Workshop on Guarded Fragments (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews, T., et al.: Business process execution language for web services (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peterson, J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Genesereth, M.R., Love, N., Pell, B.: General game playing: Overview of the AAAI competition. AI Magazine 26(2), 62–72 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: Fluxplayer: a successful general game player. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banerjee, B., Stone, P.: General game learning using knowledge transfer. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaiser, D.M.: Automatic feature extraction for autonomous general game playing agents. In: Proc. of the 6th Intl. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reisinger, J., Bahceci, E., Karpov, I., Miikkulainen, R.: Coevolving strategies for general game playing. In: Proc. of the 3rd IEEE Symp. on Computational Intel. and Games (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Schkufza
    • 1
  • Nathaniel Love
    • 1
  • Michael Genesereth
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations