spot/src/twaalgos/simulation.hh

// -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
// Copyright (C) 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 Laboratoire de Recherche et
// Développement de l'Epita (LRDE).
//
// This file is part of Spot, a model checking library.
//
// Spot is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
// under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// Spot is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
// ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
// or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public
// License for more details.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

#pragma once

#include "misc/common.hh"
#include "twa/twagraph.hh"

namespace spot
{
  /// \addtogroup twa_reduction
  /// @{

  /// @{
  /// \brief Attempt to reduce the automaton by direct simulation.
  ///
  /// When the suffixes (letter and acceptance conditions) reachable
  /// from one state are included in the suffixes seen by another one,
  /// the former state can be merged into the latter.  The algorithm is
  /// based on the following paper, but generalized to handle TωA
  /// directly.
  ///
  /** \verbatim
      @InProceedings{ etessami.00.concur,
        author        = {Kousha Etessami and Gerard J. Holzmann},
        title         = {Optimizing {B\"u}chi Automata},
        booktitle     = {Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
     	  	      Concurrency Theory (Concur'00)},
        pages         = {153--167},
        year          = {2000},
        editor        = {C. Palamidessi},
        volume        = {1877},
        series        = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
        address       = {Pennsylvania, USA},
        publisher     = {Springer-Verlag}
      }
      \endverbatim */
  ///
  /// Our reconstruction of the quotient automaton based on this
  /// suffix-inclusion relation will also improve determinism.
  ///
  /// We recommend to call scc_filter() to first simplify the
  /// automaton that should be reduced by simulation.
  ///
  /// Reducing an automaton by simulation does not change the number
  /// of acceptance conditions.  In some rare cases (1 out of more
  /// than 500 in our benchmark), the reduced automaton will use more
  /// acceptance conditions than necessary, and running scc_filter()
  /// again afterwards will remove these superfluous conditions.
  ///
  /// \param automaton the automaton to simulate.
  /// \return a new automaton which is at worst a copy of the received
  /// one
  SPOT_API twa_graph_ptr
  simulation(const const_twa_graph_ptr& automaton);
  SPOT_API twa_graph_ptr
  simulation_sba(const const_twa_graph_ptr& automaton);
  /// @}

  /// @{
  /// \brief Attempt to reduce the automaton by reverse simulation.
  ///
  /// When the prefixes (letter and acceptance conditions) leading to
  /// one state are included in the prefixes leading to one, the former
  /// state can be merged into the latter.
  ///
  /// Reverse simulation is discussed in the following paper,
  /// but generalized to handle TωA directly.
  /** \verbatim
      @InProceedings{ somenzi.00.cav,
        author	      = {Fabio Somenzi and Roderick Bloem},
        title	      = {Efficient {B\"u}chi Automata for {LTL} Formul{\ae}},
        booktitle     = {Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
                         Computer Aided Verification (CAV'00)},
        pages         = {247--263},
        year          = {2000},
        volume        = {1855},
        series        = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
        address       = {Chicago, Illinois, USA},
        publisher     = {Springer-Verlag}
      }
      \endverbatim */
  ///
  /// Our reconstruction of the quotient automaton based on this
  /// prefix-inclusion relation will also improve codeterminism.
  ///
  /// We recommend to call scc_filter() to first simplify the
  /// automaton that should be reduced by cosimulation.
  ///
  /// Reducing an automaton by reverse simulation (1) does not change
  /// the number of acceptance conditions so the resulting automaton
  /// may have superfluous acceptance conditions, and (2) can create
  /// SCCs that are terminal and non-accepting.  For these reasons,
  /// you should call scc_filer() to prune useless SCCs and acceptance
  /// conditions afterwards.
  ///
  /// If you plan to run both simulation() and cosimulation() on the
  /// same automaton, you should start with simulation() so that the
  /// codeterminism improvements achieved by cosimulation() does not
  /// hinder the determinism improvements attempted by simulation().
  /// (This of course assumes that you prefer determinism over
  /// codeterminism.)
  ///
  /// \param automaton the automaton to simulate.
  /// \return a new automaton which is at worst a copy of the received
  /// one
  SPOT_API twa_graph_ptr
  cosimulation(const const_twa_graph_ptr& automaton);
  SPOT_API twa_graph_ptr
  cosimulation_sba(const const_twa_graph_ptr& automaton);
  /// @}

  /// @{
  /// \brief Iterate simulation() and cosimulation().
  ///
  /// Runs simulation(), cosimulation(), and scc_filter() in a loop,
  /// until the automaton does not change size (states and
  /// transitions).
  ///
  /// We recommend to call scc_filter() to first simplify the
  /// automaton that should be reduced by iterated simulations, since
  /// this algorithm will only call scc_filter() at the end of the
  /// loop.
  ///
  /// \param automaton the automaton to simulate.
  /// \return a new automaton which is at worst a copy of the received
  /// one
  SPOT_API twa_graph_ptr
  iterated_simulations(const const_twa_graph_ptr& automaton);
  SPOT_API twa_graph_ptr
  iterated_simulations_sba(const const_twa_graph_ptr& automaton);
  /// @}

} // End namespace spot.