Advertisement

Probabilistic and Nondeterministic Unary Automata

  • Gregor Gramlich
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2747)

Abstract

We investigate unary regular languages and compare deterministic finite automata (DFA’s), nondeterministic finite automata (NFA’s) and probabilistic finite automata (PFA’s) with respect to their size.

Given a unary PFA with n states and an ε-isolated cutpoint, we show that the minimal equivalent DFA has at most \(n^{\frac{1}{2\epsilon}}\) states in its cycle. This result is almost optimal, since for any α< 1 a family of PFA’s can be constructed such that every equivalent DFA has at least \(n^{\frac{\alpha}{2\epsilon}}\) states. Thus we show that for the model of probabilistic automata with a constant error bound, there is only a polynomial blowup for cyclic languages.

Given a unary NFA with n states, we show that efficiently approximating the size of a minimal equivalent NFA within the factor \(\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\ln n}\) is impossible unless P=NP. This result even holds under the promise that the accepted language is cyclic. On the other hand we show that we can approximate a minimal NFA within the factor ln n, if we are given a cyclic unary n-state DFA.

Keywords

Regular Language Finite Automaton Satisfying Assignment Ergodic Component Deterministic 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.
    Chrobak, M.: Finite automata and unary languages. Theoretical Computer Science 47, 149–158 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gantmacher, F.R.: Theory of Matrices, vol. II. Chelsea, New York (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graham, R., Knuth, D., Patashnik, O.: Concrete Mathematics. Addison Wesley, Reading (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiang, T., McDowell, E., Ravikumar, B.: The structure and complexity of minimal NFA’s over a unary alphabet. Int. J. Found. of Comp. Sci. 2, 163–182 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiang, T., Ravikumar, B.: Minimal NFA problems are hard. SIAM Journal on Computing 22(1), 1117–1141 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hochbaum, D. (ed.): Approximation algorithms for NP-hard problems. PWS Publishing Company, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mereghetti, C., Palano, B., Pighizzini, G.: On the succinctness of deterministic, nondeterministic, probabilistic and quantum finite automata, DCAGRS (2001) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milani, M., Pighizzini, G.: Tight bounds on the simulation of unary probabilistic automata by deterministic automata, DCAGRS (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabin, M.: Probabilistic automata. Information and Control, pp. 230–245 (1963) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stockmeyer, L., Meyer, A.: Word Problems Requiring Exponential Time. In: Proc. of the 5th Ann. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 1–9. New York (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Gramlich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikJohann Wolfgang Goethe–Universität FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations