scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Pushdown automaton

About: Pushdown automaton is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1868 publications have been published within this topic receiving 35399 citations.


Papers
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
27 Aug 2006
TL;DR: Higher-order notations for trees have a venerable history from the 1970s and 1980s when schemes and their relationship to formal language theory were first studied, and recently, model-checking techniques have been successfully extended to these higher- order notations in the deterministic case.
Abstract: Higher-order notations for trees have a venerable history from the 1970s and 1980s when schemes (that is, functional programs without interpretations) and their relationship to formal language theory were first studied. Included are higher-order recursion schemes and pushdown automata. Automata and language theory study finitely presented mechanisms for generating languages. Instead of language generators, one can view them as process calculi, propagators of possibly infinite labelled transition systems. Recently, model-checking techniques have been successfully extended to these higher-order notations in the deterministic case [18,9,8,21].

5 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2019
TL;DR: It is shown that non-emptiness of two-way visibly Parikh automata which are single-use is NExpTime-c, which gives applications to decision problems for expressive transducer models from nested words to words, including the equivalence problem.
Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the complexity of the emptiness problem for Parikh automata equipped with a pushdown stack. Pushdown Parikh automata extend pushdown automata with counters which can only be incremented and an acceptance condition given as a semi-linear set, which we represent as an existential Presburger formula over the final values of the counters. We show that the non-emptiness problem both in the deterministic and non-deterministic cases is NP-c. If the input head can move in a two-way fashion, emptiness gets undecidable, even if the pushdown stack is visibly and the automaton deterministic. We define a restriction, called the single-use restriction, to recover decidability in the presence of two-wayness, when the stack is visibly. This syntactic restriction enforces that any transition which increments at least one dimension is triggered only a bounded number of times per input position. Our main contribution is to show that non-emptiness of two-way visibly Parikh automata which are single-use is NExpTime-c. We finally give applications to decision problems for expressive transducer models from nested words to words, including the equivalence problem.

5 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: This paper investigates a general framework of a pushdown system with well-quasi-ordered states and stack alphabet to show decidability of reachability, which is an extension of earlier work (Wellstructured Pushdown Systems, CONCUR 2013).
Abstract: This paper investigates a general framework of a pushdown system with well-quasi-ordered states and stack alphabet to show decidability of reachability, which is an extension of our earlier work (Wellstructured Pushdown Systems, CONCUR 2013). As an instance, an alternative proof of the decidability of the reachability for dense-timed pushdown system (in P.A. Abdulla, M.F. Atig, F. Stenman, Dense-Timed Pushdown Automata, IEEE LICS 2012 ) is presented. Our proof would be more robust for extensions, e.g., regular valuations with time.

5 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: It is argued that the CSA is not a computational model in the usual sense because CSAs do not perspicuously represent algorithms, and because they are too powerful both in that they can perform any computation in a single step and in that without so far unspecified restrictions they can “compute” the uncomputable.
Abstract: David Chalmers has defended an account of what it is for a physical system to implement a computation The account appeals to the idea of a “combinatorial-state automaton” or CSA It is not entirely clear whether Chalmers intends the CSA to be a full-blown computational model, or merely a convenient formalism into which instances of other models can be translated I argue that the CSA is not a computational model in the usual sense because CSAs do not perspicuously represent algorithms, and because they are too powerful both in that they can perform any computation in a single step and in that without so far unspecified restrictions they can “compute” the uncomputable In addition, I suggest that finite, inputless CSAs have trivial implementations very similar to those they were introduced to avoid keywords: Combinatorial-state automaton, computational model, implementation, Tur-

5 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Acceptance by empty stack and acceptance by final states are proven to have the same recognition power in this new model, which includes the class of context-free languages.

5 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Time complexity
36K papers, 879.5K citations
87% related
Finite-state machine
15.1K papers, 292.9K citations
86% related
Model checking
16.9K papers, 451.6K citations
84% related
Concurrency
13K papers, 347.1K citations
84% related
String (computer science)
19.4K papers, 333.2K citations
83% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202314
202234
202129
202052
201947
201834