Determinism vs. Nondeterminism for Two-Way Automata

Representing the Meaning of States by Logical Formulæ
  • Juraj Hromkovič
  • Rastislav Královič
  • Richard Královič
  • Richard Štefanec
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7410)


The question whether nondeterminism is more powerful than determinism for two-way automata is one of the most famous old open problems on the border between formal language theory and automata theory. An exponential gap between the number of states of two-way nondeterministic finite automata (2NFA) and their deterministic counterparts (2DFA) was proved only for some restricted versions of two-way automata up to now. This problem is also related to the famous DLOG vs. NLOG problem. A superpolynomial gap between 2NFAs and 2DFAs on words of polynomial length in the parameter of a complete language of Sipser and Sakoda for the 2DFA vs. 2NFAs problem would imply that DLOG is a proper subset of NLOG.

The goal of this paper is first to survey the attempts to solve the 2DFA vs. 2NFA problem. After that we discus why this problem is so hard in spite of the fact that one has a very clear intuition why nondeterminism has to be more powerful than determinism for this computing model. It seems that the hardness lies in the fact that, when trying to prove lower bounds on the number of states of 2DFAs, we are not able to force the states to have a clear meaning. When designing an automaton, we always assign an unambiguous interpretation to each state. In an attempt to capture the concept of meaning of states we introduce a new restriction on the two-way automata: Each state is assigned a logical formula expressing some properties of the input word, and transitions of the automaton must be designed in such a way that the assigned formula is true whenever the automaton is in the given state. In our approach we use propositional formulæ with various interpreted atoms. For two such reasonable logics we prove an exponential gap between 2NFAs and 2DFAs. Moreover, using our concept of assigning meaning to the states of 2DFAs we show that there is no exponential gap between general 2NFAs and 2DFAs on inputs of a polynomial length of the complete language of Sakoda and Sipser.


nondeterminism two-way finite automata state complexity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berman, P., Lingas, A.: On complexity of regular languages in terms of finite automata. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw (1977)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chrobak, M.: Finite automata and unary languages. Theoretical Computer Science 47(2), 149–158 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duriš, P., Hromkovič, J., Jukna, S., Sauerhoff, M., Schnitger, G.: On Multipartition Communication Complexity (Extended Abstract). In: Ferreira, A., Reichel, H. (eds.) STACS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2010, pp. 206–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geffert, V.: Magic numbers in the state hierarchy of finite automata. Information and Computation 205(11), 1652–1670 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geffert, V., Mereghetti, C., Pighizzini, G.: Converting two-way nondeterministic unary automata into simpler automata. Theoretical Computer Science 295, 189–203 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hromkovič, J., Sauerhoff, M.: The power of nondeterminism and randomness for oblivious branching programs. Theory of Computing Systems 36(2), 159–182 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kapoutsis, C.A.: Small Sweeping 2NFAs Are Not Closed Under Complement. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4051, pp. 144–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kapoutsis, C.A.: Deterministic moles cannot solve liveness. Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics 12(1-2), 215–235 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kapoutsis, C.A.: Size Complexity of Two-Way Finite Automata. In: Diekert, V., Nowotka, D. (eds.) DLT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5583, pp. 47–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kapoutsis, C.A., Královič, R., Mömke, T.: Size complexity of rotating and sweeping automata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 78(2), 537–558 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolodin, A.N.: Two-way nondeterministic automata. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 10(5), 778–785 (1972)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Královič, R.: Infinite vs. finite space-bounded randomized computations. In: Proc. of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2009), pp. 316–325. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C. (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Královič, R.: Complexity classes of finite automata. Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich, No. 18871 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Micali, S.: Two-way deterministic finite automata are exponentially more succinct than sweeping automata. Information Processing Letters 12(2), 103–105 (1981)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore, F.R.: On the bounds for state-set size in the proofs of equivalence between deterministic, nondeterministic, and two-way finite automata. IEEE Transactions on Computers 100(20), 1211–1214 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rabin, M.O., Scott, D.: Finite automata and their decision problems. IBM Journal of Research and Development (3) (1959)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sakoda, W.J., Sipser, M.: Nondeterminism and the size of two way finite automata. In: Proc. of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1978), pp. 275–286. ACM Press, New York (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sipser, M.: Halting space-bounded computations. Theoretical Computer Science 10(3), 335–338 (1980)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juraj Hromkovič
    • 1
  • Rastislav Královič
    • 2
  • Richard Královič
    • 1
    • 3
  • Richard Štefanec
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.Google ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations