<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>On Some Succinct Representations of Regular Languages</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Extended Abstract</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Bruno Guillon</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Giovanni Pighizzini, and Luca Prigioniero</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Dipartimento di Informatica, Universit degli Studi di Milano</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IT">Italy</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Non-self-embedding grammars, constant-height pushdown automata and 1-limited automata are restrictions of context-free grammars, pushdown automata and Turing machines, respectively. All of them characterize the class of regular languages. There is a double size exponential gap from each of these models to deterministic nite automata. Non-self-embedding grammars and constant-height pushdown automata are polynomially related in size. Moreover, there exists a polynomial size simulation by 1-limited automata. In contrast, the converse transformation costs exponential.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Regular languages are usually represented using regular expression or nite
automata. It is well known that, in the worst case, deterministic automata can
require exponentially many states with respect to equivalent nondeterministic
automata. Hence, there is an exponential size gap from nondeterministic to
deterministic automata. Further representations which can be more succinct than
nondeterministic automata have been discovered and investigated. Three of them
are considered in this work: non-self-embedding grammars, constant-height
pushdown automata, and 1-limited automata. The size gap from each one of these
representations to equivalent deterministic automata is double exponential.</p>
      <p>To describe non-self-embedding grammars , we rst recall that the extra
capability of context-free grammars with respect to regular ones is that of describing
recursive structures as, for instance, nested parentheses, arithmetic expressions,
typical programming language constructs. In terms of recognizing devices, this
capability is implemented through the pushdown store, which is used to
extend nite automata in order to make the resulting model, namely pushdown
automata, equivalent to context-free grammars.</p>
      <p>
        To emphasize this capability, in one of his pioneering papers, Chomsky
investigated the self-embedding property [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]: a context-free grammar is self-embedding
if it contains a variable A which, in some sentential form, is able to reproduce
itself surrounded by two nonempty strings and , in symbols A =?) A .
Roughly speaking, this means that such self-embedded variable A is truly
recursive. He proved that, among all context-free grammars, only self-embedding
ones can generate nonregular languages. Hence, non-self-embedding grammars
are no more powerful than nite automata.
      </p>
      <p>
        The proof given by Chomsky of this result is constructive, namely it
provides a method for obtaining a nite automaton equivalent to a given
non-selfembedding grammar [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref4">3,4</xref>
        ]. A dierent constructive proof of the same result was
given by Anselmo, Giammarresi, and Varricchio [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], by showing a decomposition
of non-self-embedding grammars in regular grammars and then iteratively
applying regular substitutions to obtain equivalent nite automata. In the same paper,
the authors also proved that the size gap from non-self-embedding grammars to
equivalent automata is at least exponential.
      </p>
      <p>
        It is worthwhile to mention that, in 1971, Meyer and Fischer proved that for
any recursive function f and arbitrarily large integer n, there exists a context-free
grammar whose description has size n and which generates a regular language,
such that any equivalent nite automaton requires at least f (n) states [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. This
means that it is not possible to obtain a recursive bound relating the size of
context-free grammars generating regular languages with the number of states
of equivalent deterministic nite automata. It is important to notice that the
result of Meyer and Fischer was obtained by considering grammars with a
twoletter terminal alphabet. The unary, i.e., one-letter, case was studied in 2002 by
Pighizzini, Shallit, and Wang, who obtained optimal recursive bounds [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        We recently proved that also in the case of non-self-embedding grammars,
the bounds are recursive, independently on the alphabet size [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. In particular,
by inspecting and rening the construction presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], we showed that each
non-self-embedding grammar of size s can be converted into equivalent
nondeterministic and deterministic automata with 2O(s) and 22O(s) states, respectively.
We also obtained a family of languages that witness that these gaps cannot be
reduced. Furthermore, these gaps do not change if we allow the variables which
generate only unary strings (i.e., strings consisting of occurrences of only one
terminal) to be self-embedded. Such grammars, which are also equivalent to nite
automata, are called quasi-non-self-embedding grammars .
      </p>
      <p>
        Constant-height pushdown automata are standard nondeterministic
pushdown automata where the amount of available pushdown store is xed. Hence,
the number of their possible congurations is nite, thus implying that they
are no more powerful than nite automata. Exponential and double exponential
gaps from constant-height pushdown automata to nondeterministic and
deterministic automata, respectively, have been proved in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Furthermore, in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] the
authors showed the interesting result that also the gap from nondeterministic
to deterministic constant-height pushdown automata is double exponential. As
non-self-embedding grammars, constant-height pushdown automata are
restrictions of the corresponding general model, where true recursions are not possible.
By comparing these two models, we proved that they are polynomially related
in size [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        For each integer d &gt; 0, a d-limited automaton is a one-tape nondeterminstic
Turing machine which is allowed to rewrite the content of each tape cell only in
the rst d visits. These models have been introduced by Hibbard in 1967, who
proved that for each d 2 they characterize context-free languages [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. This
yields a hierarchy of acceptors, merely obtained by restricting one-tape
Turing machines, corresponding to Chomsky’s classication. Furthermore, as shown
in [14, Thm. 12.1], 1-limited automata are equivalent to nite automata. This
equivalence has been investigated from the descriptional complexity point of view
in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ], by proving exponential and double exponential gaps from 1-limited
automata to nondeterministic and deterministic nite automata, respectively. Our
main result is a construction transforming each non-self-embedding grammar
into a 1-limited automaton of polynomial size. For the converse transformation,
we show that an exponential size is necessary. Indeed, we prove a stronger result
by exhibiting, for each n &gt; 0, a language Ln accepted by a two-way deterministic
nite automaton with O(n) states, which requires exponentially many states to
be accepted even by an unrestricted pushdown automaton. From the cost of the
conversion of 1-limited automata into nondeterministic automata, it turns out
that for the conversion of 1-limited automata into non-self-embedding grammars
an exponential size is also sucient.
      </p>
      <p>
        We use standard abbreviations as cfg, pda, etc. The prex 2 before nfa
or dfa is used to indicate two-way automata . pdas with pushdown store height
bounded by h are indicated as h-pdas. nse is an abbreviation for
non-selfembedding. Figure 1 summarizes some of the results discussed in this extended
abstract. More details can be found in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] and [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>nse</p>
      <p>h-pda
poly (Thm 2)
poly (Thm 2)
exp (Thm 4)
exp
2nfa
poly (Thm 3)
exp (Cor 1)</p>
      <p>1-la
exp [11, Thm 4]
For each model under consideration, we evaluate its size as the total number of
symbols used to write down its description. For instance, the size of a grammar
is linear in the sum of the lengths of its productions.</p>
      <p>
        Theorem 1 ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]). Given an nse grammar of size s, there exist an
equivalent nfa and an equivalent dfa with a number of states exponential and double
exponential in s, respectively. In the worst case these sizes cannot be reduced.
      </p>
      <p>To show that the bounds in Theorem 1 cannot be reduced, we can consider,
for any integer h &gt; 0, the language Lh fa; bg dened as the set of strings
composed of k blocks w1w2 wk each of length h, for some k &gt; 1, such that
the last block wk is the reverse of one of the rst k 1 blocks, i.e.,
Lh = fw1w2
wk 1wk j k &gt; 1; wi 2 fa; bgh; i = 1; : : : ; k;
and 9j; 1
j &lt; k; s.t. wj = wkRg.</p>
      <p>It can be proved that Lh is generated by a nse of size O(n), while, by a standard
distinguish ability argument, each dfa accepting it requires 22h many states.</p>
      <p>The statement of Theorem 1 remains true if the grammar is quasi -nse, i.e.,
it is allowed to contain self-embedded variables, provided that each terminal
string generated by them is unary, namely it consists only of occurrences of a
same symbol. In contrast, for quasi -nse grammars generating letter bounded
languages, the cost of the conversion into dfas reduces to a simple exponential
in the size cost.</p>
      <p>
        Theorem 2 ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]). h-pdas and nse grammars are polynomially related in size.
In the proof of Theorem 2, the transformation from h-pdas to nse grammars is
an adaption of a standard transformation from pdas to cfgs. For the converse,
a modication of a decomposition of nse grammars presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] is used.
      </p>
      <p>Now, we consider the size relationships of nse grammars and h-pdas with
1-limited automata.</p>
      <p>
        Theorem 3 ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]). For every nse grammar G, there exist a 1-state
letter-toletter nondeterministic transducer T and a 2nfa A of polynomial size, such
that a word w is generated by G if and only if A accepts an image u of w by T .
As a consequence, G can be transformed into a 1-la of polynomial size.
Given an input w, the transducer T nondeterministically generates a compression
of a derivation tree of w. The 2nfa A veries the validity of such a guess. The
resulting 1-la is a composition of T and A. The converse transformation is
exponential. Actually we have a stronger result:
Theorem 4 ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]). For each n &gt; 0, let Ln be the language of the powers of any
string of length n over f0; 1g, i.e., Ln = uk j u 2 f0; 1gn; k 0 . Then:
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Ln is accepted by a 2dfa of size O(n);</title>
      <p>each context-free grammar in Chomsky normal form needs exponentially
many variables in n to generate Ln;
the size of any pda accepting Ln is at least exponential in n.</p>
      <p>Corollary 1. The size cost of the conversion of 1-las into nse grammars and
h-pdas is exponential.</p>
      <p>
        Proof. The lower bound derives from Theorem 4. For the upper bound, in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]
it was proved that each 1-la can be transformed into a 1nfa of exponential size
from which, by standard construction, we can obtain a regular (and, so, nse)
grammar, without increasing the size asymptotically.
      </p>
      <p>
        In [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], the question of the cost of the conversion of deterministic h-pdas into
1nfas was raised. To this regard, we observe that the language (a2n ) is
accepted by a deterministic h-pda of size polynomial in n for large enough h (see,
e.g., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]) but, by a standard pumping argument, it requires at least 2n states
to be accepted by 1nfas. Actually, as a consequence of state lower bound
presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ], 2n states are also necessary to accept it on each 2nfa. Considering
Theorem 4, we can conclude that both simulations from two-way automata to
h-pdas and from h-pdas to two-way automata cost at least exponential.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Anselmo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giammarresi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Varricchio</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Finite automata and non-selfembedding grammars</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CIAA 2002. LNCS</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>2608</volume>
          , pp.
          <volume>4756</volume>
          (
          <year>2002</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>BednÆrovÆ</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Geert</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mereghetti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Palano</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Removing nondeterminism in constant height pushdown automata</article-title>
          .
          <source>Inf. Comput</source>
          .
          <volume>237</volume>
          ,
          <issue>257267</issue>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chomsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          , N.:
          <article-title>On certain formal properties of grammars</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information and Control</source>
          <volume>2</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <volume>137167</volume>
          (
          <year>1959</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chomsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          , N.:
          <article-title>A note on phrase structure grammars</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information and Control</source>
          <volume>2</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <volume>393395</volume>
          (
          <year>1959</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Geert</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mereghetti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Palano</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>More concise representation of regular languages by automata and regular expressions</article-title>
          .
          <source>Inf. Comput</source>
          .
          <volume>208</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <volume>385394</volume>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guillon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pighizzini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Prigioniero</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Non-self-embedding grammars, constant-height pushdown automata, and limited automata</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CIAA</source>
          <year>2018</year>
          . LNCS (
          <year>2018</year>
          ), to appear
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hibbard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.N.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A generalization of context-free determinism</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information and Control</source>
          <volume>11</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          /2),
          <volume>196238</volume>
          (
          <year>1967</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mereghetti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pighizzini</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G.:
          <article-title>Two-way automata simulations and unary languages</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics</source>
          <volume>5</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <volume>287300</volume>
          (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9. Meyer,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.R.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Fischer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.J.:</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Economy of description by automata, grammars, and formal systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 12th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory</source>
          , East Lansing, Michigan, USA, October
          <volume>13</volume>
          -
          <issue>15</issue>
          ,
          <year>1971</year>
          . pp.
          <fpage>188191</fpage>
          . IEEE Computer Society (
          <year>1971</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pighizzini</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G.:
          <article-title>Deterministic pushdown automata and unary languages</article-title>
          .
          <source>Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci</source>
          .
          <volume>20</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ),
          <volume>629645</volume>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pighizzini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pisoni</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Limited automata and regular languages</article-title>
          .
          <source>Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci</source>
          .
          <volume>25</volume>
          (
          <issue>7</issue>
          ),
          <volume>897916</volume>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pighizzini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Prigioniero</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Non-self-embedding grammars and descriptional complexity</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: NCMA 2017</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>197209</volume>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pighizzini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shallit</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Unary context-free grammars and pushdown automata, descriptional complexity and auxiliary space lower bounds</article-title>
          .
          <source>J. Comput. Syst. Sci</source>
          .
          <volume>65</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <volume>393414</volume>
          (
          <year>2002</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wagner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wechsung</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.: Computational</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Complexity</surname>
          </string-name>
          . D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (
          <year>1986</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>