Advertisement

Membership Testing: Removing Extra Stacks from Multi-stack Pushdown Automata

  • Nutan Limaye
  • Meena Mahajan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5457)

Abstract

We show that fixed membership testing for many interesting subclasses of multi-pushdown machines is no harder than for pushdowns with single stack. The models we consider are MVPA, OVPA and MPDA, which have all been defined and studied in the past.

Multi-stack pushdown automata, MPDA, have ordered stacks with pop access restricted to the stack-top of the first non-empty stack. The membership for MPDAs is known to be in NSPACE(n) and in P. We show that the P-time algorithm can be implemented in the complexity class LogCFL; thus membership for MPDAs is LogCFL-complete.

It follows that membership testing for ordered visibly pushdown automata OVPA is also in LogCFL.

The membership problem for multi-stack visibly pushdown automata, MVPA, is known to be NP-complete. However, many applications focus on MVPA with O(1) phases. We show that for MVPA with O(1) phases, membership reduces to that in MPDAs, and so is in LogCFL.

Keywords

Table Entry Input String Proof Tree Membership Problem Sentential Form 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hopcroft, A., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sudborough, I.H.: On the tape complexity of deterministic context-free language. Journal of Association of Computing Machinery 25(3), 405–414 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sudborough, I.H.: A note on tape-bounded complexity classes and linear context-free languages. Journal of Association of Computing Machinery 22, 499–500 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holzer, M., Lange, K.J.: On the complexities of linear LL(1) and LR(1) grammars. In: 9th International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory FCT, London, UK, pp. 299–308. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alur, R., Madhusudan, P.: Visibly pushdown languages. In: 36th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2004), pp. 202–211 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehlhorn, K.: Pebbling mountain ranges and its application to DCFL recognition. In: 7th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pp. 422–432 (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dymond, P.W.: Input-driven languages are in logn depth. Information Processing Letters 26, 247–250 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carotenuto, D., Murano, A., Peron, A.: 2-visibly pushdown automata. In: Harju, T., Karhumäki, J., Lepistö, A. (eds.) DLT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4588, pp. 132–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    La Torre, S., Madhusudan, P., Parlato, G.: A robust class of context-sensitive languages. In: 22nd Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 161–170 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cherubini, A., Breveglieri, L., Citrini, C., Crespi Reghizzi, S.: Multipushdown languages and grammars. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 7(3), 253–292 (1996)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cherubini, A., Pietro, P.S.: A polynomial-time parsing algorithm for a class of non-deterministic two-stack automata. In: 4th Italian Conference on Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 150–164 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cherubini, A., Pietro, P.S.: A polynomial-time parsing algorithm for k-depth languages. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 52(1), 61–79 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allender, E., Jiao, J., Mahajan, M., Vinay, V.: Non-commutative arithmetic circuits: depth reduction and size lower bounds. Theoretical Computer Science 209, 47–86 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruzzo, W.: Tree-size bounded alternation. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 21, 218–235 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vollmer, H.: Introduction to Circuit Complexity: A Uniform Approach. Springer, New York (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barrington, D.: Bounded-width polynomial size branching programs recognize exactly those languages in NC1. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 38, 150–164 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pietro, P.S.: Two-stack automata. Rapporto Interno n. 92-073, Dipartimento Di Elettronica e Informazione, Politecnico di Milano, Milano (October 1992), http://home.dei.polimi.it/sanpietr/pubs/twostack92.ZIP

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nutan Limaye
    • 1
  • Meena Mahajan
    • 1
  1. 1.The Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations