{"title":"同步确定性下推自动机真的很难","authors":"Henning Fernau , Petra Wolf , Tomoyuki Yamakami","doi":"10.1016/j.ic.2023.105089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>The question if a deterministic finite automaton<span> admits a software reset in the form of a so-called synchronizing word can be answered in polynomial time<span>. In this paper, we extend this algorithmic question to deterministic automata beyond </span></span></span>finite automata<span>. We prove that the question of synchronizability becomes undecidable even when looking at deterministic one-counter automata. This is also true for another classical mild extension of regularity, namely, that of deterministic one-turn push-down automata. However, when we combine both restrictions, we arrive at scenarios with a </span></span><span>PSPACE</span>-complete (and hence decidable) synchronizability problem. Likewise, we arrive at a decidable synchronizability problem for (partially) blind deterministic counter automata.</p><p>There are several interpretations of what <em>synchronizability</em><span> should mean for deterministic push-down automata. This is depending on the role of the stack: should it be empty on synchronization, should it be always the same or is it arbitrary? For the automata classes studied in this paper, the complexity or decidability status of the synchronizability problem is mostly independent of this technicality, but we also discuss one class of automata where this makes a difference.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":54985,"journal":{"name":"Information and Computation","volume":"295 ","pages":"Article 105089"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Synchronizing deterministic push-down automata can be really hard\",\"authors\":\"Henning Fernau , Petra Wolf , Tomoyuki Yamakami\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ic.2023.105089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span><span>The question if a deterministic finite automaton<span> admits a software reset in the form of a so-called synchronizing word can be answered in polynomial time<span>. In this paper, we extend this algorithmic question to deterministic automata beyond </span></span></span>finite automata<span>. We prove that the question of synchronizability becomes undecidable even when looking at deterministic one-counter automata. This is also true for another classical mild extension of regularity, namely, that of deterministic one-turn push-down automata. However, when we combine both restrictions, we arrive at scenarios with a </span></span><span>PSPACE</span>-complete (and hence decidable) synchronizability problem. Likewise, we arrive at a decidable synchronizability problem for (partially) blind deterministic counter automata.</p><p>There are several interpretations of what <em>synchronizability</em><span> should mean for deterministic push-down automata. This is depending on the role of the stack: should it be empty on synchronization, should it be always the same or is it arbitrary? For the automata classes studied in this paper, the complexity or decidability status of the synchronizability problem is mostly independent of this technicality, but we also discuss one class of automata where this makes a difference.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information and Computation\",\"volume\":\"295 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105089\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information and Computation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540123000925\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540123000925","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Synchronizing deterministic push-down automata can be really hard
The question if a deterministic finite automaton admits a software reset in the form of a so-called synchronizing word can be answered in polynomial time. In this paper, we extend this algorithmic question to deterministic automata beyond finite automata. We prove that the question of synchronizability becomes undecidable even when looking at deterministic one-counter automata. This is also true for another classical mild extension of regularity, namely, that of deterministic one-turn push-down automata. However, when we combine both restrictions, we arrive at scenarios with a PSPACE-complete (and hence decidable) synchronizability problem. Likewise, we arrive at a decidable synchronizability problem for (partially) blind deterministic counter automata.
There are several interpretations of what synchronizability should mean for deterministic push-down automata. This is depending on the role of the stack: should it be empty on synchronization, should it be always the same or is it arbitrary? For the automata classes studied in this paper, the complexity or decidability status of the synchronizability problem is mostly independent of this technicality, but we also discuss one class of automata where this makes a difference.
期刊介绍:
Information and Computation welcomes original papers in all areas of theoretical computer science and computational applications of information theory. Survey articles of exceptional quality will also be considered. Particularly welcome are papers contributing new results in active theoretical areas such as
-Biological computation and computational biology-
Computational complexity-
Computer theorem-proving-
Concurrency and distributed process theory-
Cryptographic theory-
Data base theory-
Decision problems in logic-
Design and analysis of algorithms-
Discrete optimization and mathematical programming-
Inductive inference and learning theory-
Logic & constraint programming-
Program verification & model checking-
Probabilistic & Quantum computation-
Semantics of programming languages-
Symbolic computation, lambda calculus, and rewriting systems-
Types and typechecking