English

Languages given by Finite Automata over the Unary Alphabet

Formal Languages and Automata Theory 2024-12-16 v3 Logic

Abstract

This paper studies the complexity of operations on finite automata and the complexity of their decision problems when the alphabet is unary. Let nn denote the maximum of the number of states of the input finite automata considered in the corresponding results. The following main results are obtained: (1) Given two unary NFAs recognising LL and HH, respectively, one can decide whether LHL \subseteq H as well as whether L=HL = H in time 2O((nlogn)1/3)2^{O((n \log n)^{1/3})}. The previous upper bound on time was 2O((nlogn)1/2)2^{O((n \log n)^{1/2})} as given by Chrobak (1986), and this bound was not significantly improved since then. (2) Given two unary UFAs (unambiguous finite automata) recognising LL and HH, respectively, one can determine a UFA recognising LHL \cup H and a UFA recognising complement of LL, where these output UFAs have the number of states bounded by a quasipolynomial in nn. However, in the worst case, a UFA for recognising concatenation of languages recognised by two nn-state UFAs, uses 2Θ((nlog2n)1/3)2^{\Theta((n \log^2 n)^{1/3})} states. (3) Given a unary language LL, if LL contains the word of length kk, then let L(k)=1L(k)=1 else let L(k)=0L(k)=0. Let ωL\omega_L be the ω\omega-word L(0)L(1)L(0)L(1)\ldots and let L\cal L be a fixed ω\omega-regular language. The last section studies how difficult it is to decide, given an nn-state UFA or NFA

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2302.06435,
  title  = {Languages given by Finite Automata over the Unary Alphabet},
  author = {Wojciech Czerwiński and Maciej Dębski and Tomasz Gogasz and Gordon Hoi and Sanjay Jain and Michał Skrzypczak and Frank Stephan and Christopher Tan},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06435},
  year   = {2024}
}

Comments

Extended version of paper at FSTTCS 2023 of same authors with same title. The paper gives improved lower bound for concatenation of UFAs