24.18 Lower bounds for determinizability of weighted automata over \(\mathbb Q\)

Although quite natural, the problem of deciding if a weighted automaton can be determinized has only been solved in 2022 by Bell & Smertnig [arXiv:2209.02260]. Following this decidability result, it is shown in Benalioua, Lhote & Reynier [arXiv:2307.13505] that one can decide in 2EXPTIME if a weighted automaton over the field of rationals is equivalent to a deterministic one. It is shown in Jecker, Mazowiecki & Purser [arXiv:2310.02204] that determinizability can be decided in PSPACE, when the automata are restricted to polynomial ambiguity.

Question: Can one obtain lower bounds for the decision problem of determinizability of weighted automata over \(\mathbb Q\)?

24.17 Monotone regular functions

A regular function is given by a deterministic 2way transducer: a deterministic 2way automaton with outputs. Over the word \(w\in \Sigma^* \) such an automaton has an input tape with content \({\vdash} w {\dashv}\) and can move left and right in a read-only fashion (accepting runs have to end on \(\dashv\)). On every transition an output word in \(\Gamma^*\) is written on a right-only output tape. Such a machine realizes a partial function \(f:\Sigma^*\rightarrow\Gamma^*\), defined on words with an accepting run.

Such a function \(f\) is monotone if for any \(u,v\in\Sigma^*\), if \(u\leq v\) then \(f(u)\leq f(v)\), where \(\leq \) denotes the prefix order.

A sequential 2way transducer is a syntactic restriction of deterministic transducers where no transition is allowed on symbol \(\dashv\). Such a machine necessarily realizes a monotone function since the run over word \(u\) is a prefix of the run over word \(uv\). </p>

Question: Can every monotone regular function be realized by a sequential 2way transducer?

24.16 Speed of victory in adversarial population games

Population games involve two players, Laetitia and Terence, and an NFA with one initial and one final state. At the start, some number $N$ of tokens are placed on the initial state. At each turn, Laetitia chooses a letter $a$ and Terence moves each token along a transition labelled by $a$.

The goal of Laetitia is that at some point all tokens are gathered on the final state, while Terence tries to avoid it indefinitely. It was shown in [1] that we can decide whether Laetitia wins for all number of tokens $N$. The proof uses an abstracted version of the game, called the \textit{capacity game}, in which the number of tokens is not written explicitly. In the journal version [2], it was shown that if Laetitia wins then she has a strategy to win in $O(N^k)$ steps, for all $N$, with $k$ depending only on the NFA.

Continue Reading →

24.15 Games under delays and loss

We aim to model the problem of networked control. Sometimes (e.g., signals at a train junction, a rover on Mars), the systems are operated remotely, but the communication channels may be unreliable. We wish to ensure the specification satisfiability under unreliable channels. To this end, we consider the following game on graphs:

The vertices have no ownership, but the two players player at alternate timesteps. The system has a LTL specification to satisfy on the infinite words generated by the plays. The system player plays remotely and has to send a signal to make a move on the graph. However, the signal could be delayed (with a bound) or lost during the transmission, and the token does not move. Then the environment player makes a move to move the token.

Questions:

  1. Does the system have a strategy (with/without memory) to satisfy the specification?
  2. If not, identify the minimal set of unsafe edges that should be removed from the graph so that even if the delays and losses occur, the environment may not take an action such that the specification satisfaction becomes impossible.

24.14 Extending asynchronous subtyping for binary session types

ession types are constructs to define protocol interactions and automatically verify if an implementation meets its specifications. They extend data types to describe communication behaviour, specifying which types of messages can be sent or received and in what order. Session types are often represented by communicating automata, i.e. finite-state automata with FIFO channels or buffers to enable communication between them.

A key challenge in using session types is ensuring that one component in a distributed system can be replaced by another without breaking the overall protocol. This issue is addressed by session subtyping, which is a preorder relation on session types. Formally, \(S'\) is considered a subtype of \(S\), written as \(S' \leq S\), if a program with type \(S\) can be safely replaced by a program with type \(S'\).

For synchronous communication, the session subtyping only needs to ensure that the subtype implements fewer internal choices (\(sends\)), and more external choices (\(receives\)), than its supertype. However, for asynchronous communication, the reordering of messages is permitted, i.e. the subtype can anticipate \(send\) actions under the condition that all pending \(receives\) are eventually executed. This takes advantage of the asynchronous model and, hence, is more general. However, it was shown that deciding if two programs are subtypes under the asynchronous relation is undecidable.

Continue Reading →

24.13 Satisfiability of String Constraints with Subsequence relation

By \(\le\) we denote the (scattered) subsequence relation between words. Example: \(aba \le baabbabbb\). Fix a finite alphabet \(A\). Let \(X\) be a set of string variables. A subsequence constraint is an expression of the form \(x \le \alpha \) where \(x \in X\) and \(\alpha \in X^*\). A homomorphism \(h: X^\ast \to A^*\) satisfies a subsequence constraint \(x \le \alpha \) if \(h(x) \le h(\alpha)\). A domain restriction constraint \(d: X \to RE(A)\) restricts the domain of possible values for a variable \(x\) to the regular language given by the regular expression \(d(e)\). We are interested in the decidability of the following problem:

Input: A set \(C\) of subsequence constraints and a domain restriction \(d\). Question:Is there a homomorphism \(h\) that respects the domain restriction \(d\) and satisfies every subsequence constraint in \(C\)?

24.12 Fine-grained complexity of reachability in one-counter automata

We consider the reachability problem for one-counter automata. In this model, we have a finite set of states and a single counter with values over the natural numbers. Each transition can change the current state of the automaton as well as increment or decrement the current value of the counter by some number, encoded in binary. The reachability problem for this model is known to be NP-complete. However, the exact running time of the best possible deterministic algorithm for this problem is unknown.

Similar to the theory of NP-completeness which lets us prove that various problems do not admit polynomial-time algorithms under some plausible assumptions, in recent years, a theory of fine-grained complexity has emerged which lets us pinpoint the exact running time of various problems under plausible hypotheses. It would be interesting to see the applicability of techniques from this field for the reachability problem for one-counter automata.

24.11 Membership of a coverability VASS in FO2

A VASS of dimension \(d\) is an automaton where the transitions from states to states are given with a vector \(\bar{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^d\), meant to be added coordinate-wise to the current counter. A transition can only be taken if it keeps each coordinate non-negative. A language of words can either be recognised by reachability (one reads the word from an initial configuration \(\langle q_0,\bar{v}_0\rangle\) to a final one) or by coverability (one reads the word from an initial configuration to any configuration \(\langle q,\bar{v}\rangle\) which dominates coordinate-wise a specified one).

We would like to investigate the following class of problems, for F being a class of regular languages: is the language recognised by a given VASS in F?

In most cases, the problem is undecidable, but for different reasons, depending on how the VASS is recognised. If the VASS is recognised by reachability, the problem is undecidable as soon as the formalism F admits some very basic closure properties, hence there is little hope for obtaining anything interesting. However, if the VASS is recognised by coverability, then the problem is undecidable as soon as the class F contains LT (for Locally Testable), the class of languages definable in terms of prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. This leaves the problem open for F being for instance the well-studied class FO2 (First-Order Logic with two variables), or PTL (the class of languages being peacewise testable, meaning which are defined in terms of subwords).

24.10 Functions Weakly-Computable by Vector Addition Systems

A vector addition system with states (VASS) is a finite graph \((Q,E)\) with labels in \(\mathbb{Z}^d\) and a designated initial state \(q_0\) and final state \(q_f\). The set of configurations is \(Q \times \mathbb{N}^d\), and a step according to an edge \(e=(p,q)\) labelled with \(v\) consists of moving from the current configuration \(p,x\) to \(q, x+v\), where \(x+v\) has to be in \(\mathbb{N}^d\) again.

The standard definition of computing a function with a VASS is as follows: One of the \(d\) "counters", usually the first, is a designated input counter. Another counter, usually the second, is used for the output. The rest of the counters are called auxiliary counters. A VASS weakly-computes a function f if the following two conditions hold:

  1. For all \(x \in \mathbb{N}\), there exists some vector \(w' \in \mathbb{N}^{d-2}\) and \(x' \in \mathbb{N}\) such that \(q_0, (x,0,0^{d-2})\) can reach \(q_f, (x', f(x), w')\). I.e. the VASS can reach the final state with the value \(f(x)\) in the output counter, the values left in auxiliary counters are irrelevant.
  2. For all \(x,x',y' \in \mathbb{N}\) and vectors \(w' \in \mathbb{N}^{d-2}\), if \(q_0, (x,0,0^{d-2})\) can reach \(q_f, (x', y', w')\), then \(y' \leq f(x)\). I.e. if the VASS can reach the final state with a value \(y'\) in the output counter, again irrespective of values left in the auxiliary counters, then \(y' \leq f(x)\).

Continue Reading →

24.9 Is the Hierarchy of Valence Systems with Open Reachability Proper?

Starting from finite state automata, one can create a hierarchy of automata models by repeatedly applying one of the following constructions:

  • Adding VASS counters (i.e. over \(\mathbb{N}\), without zero tests), and
  • Building stacks containing the model.

As a special case, we get, for example:

  • \(\mathsf{FSA}\) with \(\mathbb{N}\)-counters \(= \mathsf{VASS}\)
  • Stacks over \(\mathsf{FSA}\) \(= \mathsf{PDA}\)
  • \(\mathsf{PDA}\) with \(\mathbb{N}\)-counters \(= \mathsf{PVASS}\)

It would be interesting to know whether this hierarchy is proper, or if it collapses at some level.

A first avenue of investigation might be to consider the hierarchy created by building stacks and adding \(\mathbb{Z}\)-counters.