Advertisement

On Positive TAGED with a Bounded Number of Constraints

  • Pierre-Cyrille Héam
  • Vincent Hugot
  • Olga Kouchnarenko
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7381)

Abstract

Tree Automata With Global Equality Constraints (aka. positive TAGED, or TAGE) are a variety of Bottom-Up Tree Automata, with added expressive power. While there is interest in using this formalism to extend existing regular model-checking frameworks – built on vanilla tree automata – such a project can only be practical if the algorithmic complexity of common decision problems is kept tractable. Unfortunately, useful TAGE decision problems sport very high complexities: Membership is NP-complete, Emptiness and Finiteness are both ExpTime-complete, Universality and Inclusion are undecidable. It is well-known that restricting the kind of equality constraints can have a dramatic effect on complexity, as evidenced by Rigid Tree Automata. However, the influence of the number of constraints on complexity has yet to be examined. In this paper, we focus on three common decision problems: Emptiness, Finiteness and Membership, and study their algorithmic complexity under a bounded number of equality constraints.

Keywords

Equality Constraint Algorithmic Complexity Global Constraint Bounded Constraint Tree Automaton 
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.
    Barguñó, L., Creus, C., Godoy, G., Jacquemard, F., Vacher, C.: The emptiness problem for tree automata with global constraints. In: LICS, pp. 263–272. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogaert, B., Tison, S.: Equality and Disequality Constraints on Direct Subterms in Tree Automata. In: Finkel, A., Jantzen, M. (eds.) STACS 1992. LNCS, vol. 577, pp. 161–171. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Comon-Lundh, H., Jacquemard, F., Perrin, N.: Visibly tree automata with memory and constraints. CoRR abs/0804.3065 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dauchet, M., Mongy, J.: Transformations de noyaux reconnaissables d’arbres, Forêts RATEG. Ph.D. thesis, LIFL (France) (1981)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Filiot, E., Talbot, J.-M., Tison, S.: Tree Automata with Global Constraints. In: Ito, M., Toyama, M. (eds.) DLT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5257, pp. 314–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filiot, E., Talbot, J.-M., Tison, S.: Tree automata with global constraints. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 21(4), 571–596 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Héam, P.-C., Hugot, V., Kouchnarenko, O.: SAT solvers for queries over tree automata with constraints. In: ICST (CSTVA ws.), pp. 343–348. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hosoya, H.: Foundations of XML Processing: The Tree-Automata Approach. Cambridge University Press (2010), http://books.google.fr/books?id=xGlH3ADxwn4C
  9. 9.
    Jacquemard, F., Klay, F., Vacher, C.: Rigid tree automata and applications. Inf. Comput. 209(3), 486–512 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Cyrille Héam
    • 1
  • Vincent Hugot
    • 1
  • Olga Kouchnarenko
    • 1
  1. 1.FEMTO-ST CNRS 6174University of Franche-Comté & INRIA/CASSISFrance

Personalised recommendations