Skip to main content
Log in

The complexity of computing maximal word functions

  • Published:
computational complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Maximal word functions occur in data retrieval applications and have connections with ranking problems, which in turn were first investigated in relation to data compression [21]. By the “maximal word function” of a languageL ⫅ ∑*, we mean the problem of finding, on inputx, the lexicographically largest word belonging toL that is smaller than or equal tox.

In this paper we present a parallel algorithm for computing maximal word functions for languages recognized by one-way nondeterministic auxiliary pushdown automata (and hence for the class of context-free languages).

This paper is a continuation of a stream of research focusing on the problem of identifying properties others than membership which are easily computable for certain classes of languages. For a survey, see [24].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. V. Aho and J. D. Ullman,The Theory of Parsing, Translation and Compiling, Volume I: Parsing. Prentice-Hall, 1972.

  2. E. Allender,Invertible functions. Ph.D thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1985.

  3. E. Allender, P-Uniform Circuit Complexity.J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 36 (1989), 912–928.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. Allender andV. Gore, Rudimentary reductions revisited.Information Processing Letters 40 (1991), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Allender and J. Jiao, Depth reduction for noncommutative arithmetic circuits.Proc. Twenty-fifth Ann. ACM Symp. Theor. Comput., 515–522, 1993.

  6. E. Allender andR. Rubinstein, P-printable sets.SIAM J. Comput. 17 (1988), 1193–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. Álvarez andB. Jenner,A note on log space optimization. Report, L.S.I., Universitat Politècnica Catalunya, Barcelona, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. Álvarez andB. Jenner, A very hard log-space counting class.Theoret. Comput. Sci. 107 (1993), 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Balcázar, J. Díaz andJ. Gabarró,Structural Complexity I. Springer Verlag, New York, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. A. Mix Barrington, N. Immerman, andH. Straubing, On uniformity withinNC 1.J. Comput. System Sci. 41 (1990), 274–306.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Bertoni, D. Bruschi, andM. Goldwurm, Ranking and formal power series.Theoret. Comput. Sci. 79 (1991), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Bertoni, M. Goldwurm, andN. Sabadini, The complexity of computing the number of strings of given length in context free languages.Theoret. Comput. Sci. 86 (1991), 325–342.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Borodin, S. Cook, P. Dymond, W. Ruzzo, andM. Tompa, Two applications of inductive counting for complementation problems.SIAM J. Comput. 18 (1989), 559–578.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F.-J. Brandenberg, On one-way auxiliary pushdown automata.Proc. 3rd GI Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science48 (1977), 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Buntrock andK. Loryś, On Growing Context-Sensitive Languages.Proc. 19th Int. Coll. Automata, Languages, and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science623 (1992), 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Buss, S. Cook, A. Gupta, andV. Ramachandran, An optimal parallel algorithm for formula evaluation.SIAM J. Comput. 21 (1992), 755–780.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Chandra, L. Stockmeyer, andU. Vishkin, Constant Depth Reducibility.SIAM J. Comput. 13 (1984), 423–439.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Cook, Characterization of pushdown machines in terms of time-bounded computers.J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 18 (1971), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. Cook, A Taxonomy of Problems which have a Fast Parallel Algorithm.Inf. and Comp. 64 (1985), 2–22.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Furst, J. Saxe, andM. Sipser, Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy.Mathematical Systems Theory 17 (1984), 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Goldberg andM. Sipser, Compression and ranking.SIAM J. Comput 20 (1991), 524–536.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. Goldschlager, ε-productions in context-free grammars.Acta Informatica 16 (1981), 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  23. L. Hemachandra andS. Rudich, On the complexity of ranking.J. Comput. System Sci. 41 (1990), 251–271.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Hemachandra, Algorithms from complexity theory: polynomial-time operations for complex sets.Proc. SIGAL Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science450 (1991), 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Hoover, M. Klawe, andN. Pippenger, Bounding fan-out in logical networks.J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 31 (1984), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman,Introduction to automata theory, languages and computations. Addison-Wesley, 1979.

  27. D. Huynh, The complexity of ranking simple languages.Math. Systems Theory 23 (1990), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. Huynh, Efficient detectors and constructors for simple languages.Internat. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 2 (1991), 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Jerrum, G. Valiant, andV. Vazirani, Random generation of combinatorial structures from a uniform distribution.Theoret. Comput. Sci. 43 (1986), 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  30. R. Karp and V. Ramachandran, A survey of parallel algorithms for shared-memory machines. InHandbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. I, North Holland, 1990.

  31. M. Krentel, The complexity of optimization problems.J. Comput. System Sci. 36 (1988), 490–509.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. Lautemann, One pushdown and a small tape. InDirk Siefkes, zum 50. Geburtstag (proceedings of a meeting honoring Dirk Siefkes on his fiftieth birthday), K. Wagner, ed., Technische Universität Berlin and Universität Augsburg, 1988, 42–47.

  33. G. L. Miller, V. Ramachandran, andE. Kaltofen, Efficient Parallel Evaluation of Straight-Line Code and Arithmetic Circuits.SIAM J. Comput. 17 (1988), 687–695.

    Google Scholar 

  34. W. Ruzzo, On uniform circuit complexity.J. Comput. System Sci. 21 (1981), 365–383.

    Google Scholar 

  35. L. Sanchis andM. Fulk, On the efficient generation of languages instances.SIAM J. Comput. 19(2) (1990), 281–295.

    Google Scholar 

  36. L. Valiant, The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems.SIAM J. Comput. 8 (1979), 410–412.

    Google Scholar 

  37. H. Venkateswaran, Properties that characterize LOGCFL.J. Comput. System Sci. 42 (1991), 380–404.

    Google Scholar 

  38. H. Venkateswaran, Two dynamic programming algorithms for which interpreted pebbling helps.Inf. and Comp. 92 (1991), 237–252.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allender, E., Bruschi, D. & Pighizzini, G. The complexity of computing maximal word functions. Comput Complexity 3, 368–391 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01275489

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01275489

Subject classifications

Navigation