REVIEW 1 cited by
A Complexity Dichotomy for Semilinear Target Sets in Automata with One Counter
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
In many kinds of infinite-state systems, the coverability problem has significantly lower complexity than the reachability problem. In order to delineate the border of computational hardness between coverability and reachability, we propose to place these problems in a more general context, which makes it possible to prove complexity dichotomies. The more general setting arises as follows. We note that for coverability, we are given a vector $t$ and are asked if there is a reachable vector $x$ satisfying the relation $x\ge t$. For reachability, we want to satisfy the relation $x=t$. In the more general setting, there is a Presburger formula $\varphi(t,x)$, and we are given $t$ and are asked if there is a reachable $x$ with $\varphi(t,x)$. We study this setting for systems with one counter and binary updates: (i) integer VASS, (ii) Parikh automata, and (i) standard (non-negative) VASS. In each of these cases, reachability is NP-complete, but coverability is known to be in polynomial time. Our main results are three dichotomy theorems, one for each of the cases (i)--(iii). In each case, we show that for every $\varphi$, the problem is either NP-complete or belongs to $\mathsf{AC}^1$, a circuit complexity class within polynomial time. We also show that it is decidable on which side of the dichotomy a given formula falls.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
On the complexity of computing Strahler numbers
Computing the Strahler number of a binary tree is uNC^1-complete for term input, L-complete for pointer input, P-complete for DAG/TSLP input, and PSPACE-complete for acyclic derivation trees of CNF grammars.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.