On &ohgr;-automata and temporal logic
STOC '89 Proceedings of the twenty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Handbook of theoretical computer science (vol. B)
Reasoning about infinite computations
Information and Computation
Computer-aided verification of coordinating processes: the automata-theoretic approach
Computer-aided verification of coordinating processes: the automata-theoretic approach
Efficient minimization of deterministic weak &ohgr;-automata
Information Processing Letters
Bounded Model Checking Using Satisfiability Solving
Formal Methods in System Design
LPAR '01 Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence on Logic for Programming
Deterministic w Automata vis-a-vis Deterministic Buchi Automata
ISAAC '94 Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation
The ForSpec Temporal Logic: A New Temporal Property-Specification Language
TACAS '02 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems
Optimal Bounds for Transformations of omega-Automata
Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science
CAV '01 Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification
On the Use of Weak Automata for Deciding Linear Arithmetic with Integer and Real Variables
IJCAR '01 Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning
Relating word and tree automata
LICS '96 Proceedings of the 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
From linear time to branching time
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
On the complexity of omega -automata
SFCS '88 Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Economy of description by automata, grammars, and formal systems
SWAT '71 Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory (swat 1971)
Tightening the exchange rates between automata
CSL'07/EACSL'07 Proceedings of the 21st international conference, and Proceedings of the 16th annuall conference on Computer Science Logic
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Much is known about the differences in expressiveness and succinctness between nondeterministic and deterministic automata on infinite words. Much less is known about the relative succinctness of the different classes of nondeterministic automata. For example, while the best translation from a nondeterministic Büchi automaton to a nondeterministic co-Büchi automaton is exponential, and involves determinization, no super-linear lower bound is known. This annoying situation, of not being able to use the power of nondeterminism, nor to show that it is powerless, is shared by more problems, with direct applications in formal verification. In this paper we study a family of problems of this class. The problems originate from the study of the expressive power of deterministic Büchi automata: Landweber characterizes languages L⊆Σω that are recognizable by deterministic Büchi automata as those for which there is a regular language R⊆Σ* such that L is the limit of R; that is, w ∈L iff w has infinitely many prefixes in R. Two other operators that induce a language of infinite words from a language of finite words are co-limit, where w ∈L iff w has only finitely many prefixes in R, and persistent-limit, where w ∈L iff almost all the prefixes of w are in R. Both co-limit and persistent-limit define languages that are recognizable by deterministic co-Büchi automata. They define them, however, by means of nondeterministic automata. While co-limit is associated with complementation, persistent-limit is associated with universality. For the three limit operators, the deterministic automata for R and L share the same structure. It is not clear, however, whether and how it is possible to relate nondeterministic automata for R and L, or to relate nondeterministic automata to which different limit operators are applied. In the paper, we show that the situation is involved: in some cases we are able to describe a polynomial translation, whereas in some we present an exponential lower bound. For example, going from a nondeterministic automaton for R to a nondeterministic automaton for its limit is polynomial, whereas going to a nondeterministic automaton for its persistent limit is exponential. Our results show that the contribution of nondeterminism to the succinctness of an automaton does depend upon its semantics.