Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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)
Chrobak, M.: Finite automata and unary languages. Theoretical Computer Science 47(2), 149–158 (1986)
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)
Geffert, V.: Magic numbers in the state hierarchy of finite automata. Information and Computation 205(11), 1652–1670 (2007)
Geffert, V., Mereghetti, C., Pighizzini, G.: Converting two-way nondeterministic unary automata into simpler automata. Theoretical Computer Science 295, 189–203 (2003)
Hromkovič, J., Sauerhoff, M.: The power of nondeterminism and randomness for oblivious branching programs. Theory of Computing Systems 36(2), 159–182 (2003)
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)
Kapoutsis, C.A.: Deterministic moles cannot solve liveness. Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics 12(1-2), 215–235 (2007)
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)
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)
Kolodin, A.N.: Two-way nondeterministic automata. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 10(5), 778–785 (1972)
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)
Královič, R.: Complexity classes of finite automata. Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich, No. 18871 (2010)
Micali, S.: Two-way deterministic finite automata are exponentially more succinct than sweeping automata. Information Processing Letters 12(2), 103–105 (1981)
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)
Rabin, M.O., Scott, D.: Finite automata and their decision problems. IBM Journal of Research and Development (3) (1959)
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)
Sipser, M.: Halting space-bounded computations. Theoretical Computer Science 10(3), 335–338 (1980)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hromkovič, J., Královič, R., Královič, R., Štefanec, R. (2012). Determinism vs. Nondeterminism for Two-Way Automata. In: Yen, HC., Ibarra, O.H. (eds) Developments in Language Theory. DLT 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7410. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31653-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31653-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31652-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31653-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)