I'd like to know how you can tell if some regular expression is the complement of another regular expression. Let's say I have 2 regular expressions r_1 and r_2. I can certainly create a DFA out of each of them and then check to make sure that L(r_1) != L(r_2). But that doesn't necessarily mean that r_1 is the complement of r_2 and vice versa. Also, it seems to be that many different regular expressions that could be the same complement of a single regular expression.
So I'm wondering how, given two regular expressions, I can determine if one is the complement of another. This is also new to me, so perhaps I'm missing something that should be apparent.
Edit: I should point out that I am not simply trying to find the complement of a regular expression. I am given two regular expressions, and I am to determine if they are the complement of each other.
Here is one approach that is conceptually simple, if not terribly efficient (not that there is necessarily a more efficient solution...):
Construct NFAs M and N for regular expressions r and s, respectively. You can do this using the construction introduced in the proof that finite automata describe the same languages.
Determinize M and N to get M' and N'. We might as well go ahead and minimize them at this point... giving M'' and N''.
Construct a machine C using the Cartesian product machine construction on machines M'' and N''. Acceptance will be determined by the symmetric difference, or XOR, criterion: accepting states in the product machine correspond to pairs of states (m, n) where exactly one of the two states is accepting in its automaton.
Minimize C and call the result C'
If L(r) = L(s)', then the initial state of C' will be accepting and C' will have all transitions originating in the initial state also terminating in the initial state. If this is the case,
Why should this work? The symmetric difference of two sets is the set of everything in exactly one (not both, not neither). If L(s) and L(r) are complementary, then it is not difficult to see that the symmetric difference includes all strings (by definition, the complement of a set contains everything not in the set). Suppose now there were non-complementary sets whose symmetric difference were the universe of all strings. The sets are not complementary, so either (1) their union is non-empty or (2) their union is not the universe of all strings. In case (1), the symmetric difference will not include the shared element; in case (2), the symmetric difference will not include the missing strings. So, only complementary sets have the symmetric difference equal to the universe of all strings; and a minimal DFA for the set of all strings will always have an accepting initial state with self-loops.
For complement: L(r_1) == !L(r_2)
Given a regular expression R that describes a regular language (no fancy backreferences). Is there an algorithmic way to construct a regular expression R* that describes the language of all words except those described by R? It should be possible as Wikipedia says:
The regular languages are closed under the various operations, that is, if the languages K and L are regular, so is the result of the following operations: […] the complement ¬L
For example, given the alphabet {a,b,c}, the inverse of the language (abc*)+ is (a|(ac|b|c).*)?
As DPenner has already pointed out in the comments, the inverse of a regular expresion can be exponentially larger than the original expression. This makes inversing regular expressions unsuitable to implement negative partial expression syntax for searching purposes. Is there an algorithm that preserves the O(n*m) runtime characteristic (where n is the size of the regex and m is the length of the input) of regular expression matching and allows for negated subexpressions?
Unfortunately, the answer given by nhahdtdh in the comments is as good as we can do (so far). Whether a given regular expression generates all strings is PSPACE-complete. Since all problems in NP are in PSPACE-complete, an efficient solution to the universality problem would imply that P=NP.
If there were an efficient solution to your problem, would you be able to resolve the universality problem? Sure you would.
Use your efficient algorithm to generate a regular expression for the negation;
Determine whether the resulting regular expression generates the empty set.
Note that the problem "given a regular expression, does it generate the empty set" is fairly straightforward:
The regular expression {} generates the empty set.
(r + s) generates the empty set iff both r and s generate the empty set.
(rs) generates the empty set iff either r or s generates the empty set.
Nothing else generates the empty set.
Basically, it's pretty easy to tell whether a regular expression generates the empty set: just start evaluating the regular expression.
(Note that while the above procedure is efficient in terms of the output length, it might not be efficient in terms of the input length, if the output length is more than polynomially faster than the input length. However, if that were the case, we'd have the same result anyway, i.e., that your algorithm isn't really efficient, since it would take exponentially many steps to generate an exponentially longer output from a given input).
Wikipedia says: ... if there exists at least one regex that matches a particular set then there exist an infinite number of such expressions. We can deduct from this statement that there is an infinite number of expressions that describe the language of all words except those described by R.
Again, (as also #nhahtdh tried to explain) the simplest algorithm to address this question is to extend the scope of evaluation outside the context of the regular expression language itself. That is: match the strings you want to exclude (which represent a finite subset to work with) by using the original regular expression and then treat any failure to match as an actual match (out of an infinite set of other possibilities). So, if the result of the match is negative, your candidate strings are a subset of the valid solutions.
Is there any solution that can compare two regular expression for Subsumption, Partially overlapping, disjoint i.e. i want to know how to compare two regular expression. Secondly can i combine two regular expression if regex 1 is subsumpted by regex 2.
Say you have two expressions A and B and want to see if A matches a subset of what B does.
You need to compute the minimized DFA of B and then combine the two expressions to make a union of A and B and then compute the minimized DFA of that new expression. If those two DFAs are equal then A matches a subset of B.
In essence, you can't properly check this without going through the process of constructing a minimized automata. It will however, give a verifiable true answer to the question.
Combining the two expressions can be done by making a new expression like (A)|(B), perhaps substituting the paranthesis for non-capturing varieties if your engine supports that.
If you decide to go the whole way to do the algorithms, I've written a series of articles on the process:
http://binarysculpting.com/2012/02/11/regular-expressions-how-do-they-really-work-automata-theory-for-programmers-part-1/
http://binarysculpting.com/2012/02/15/converting-dfa-to-nfa-by-subset-construction-regular-expressions-part-2/
http://binarysculpting.com/2012/03/21/dfa-state-minimization/
To compare two automatas you could just check that the states and transitions are the same. They should be exactly equal.
Is there a way to find out if two arbitrary regular expressions are equivalent? Looks like complex problem to me, but there might be some DFA simplification mechanism or something?
To test equivalence you can compute the minimal DFAs for the expressions and compare them.
Testability of equality is one of the classical properties of regular expressions. (N.B. This doesn't hold if you're really talking about Perl regular expressions or some other technically nonregular superlanguage.)
Turn your REs to generalised finite automata A and B, then construct a new automaton A-B such that the accepting states of A have null transitions to the start states of B, and that the accepting states of B are inverted. This gives you an automaton that accepts all those strings accepted by A, except for all those accepted by B.
Do the same for B-A, and reduce both to pure FAs. If an FA has no accepting states accessible from a start state then it accepts the empty language. If you can show that both A-B and B-A are empty, you've shown that A = B.
Edit Heh, I can't believe no one noticed the gigantic error there -- an intentional one, of course :-p
The automata A-B as described will accept those strings whose first half is accepted by A and whose second half is not accepted by B. Building the desired A-B is a slightly trickier process. I can't think of it off the top of my head, but I do know it's well-defined (and likely involves creating states to the represent the products of accepting states in A and non-accepting states in B).
This really depends on what you mean by regular expressions. As the other posters pointed out, reducing both expressions to their minimal DFA should work, but it only works for the pure regular expressions.
Some of the constructs used in the real world regex libs (backreferences in particular) give them power to express languages that aren't regular, so the DFA algorithm won't work for them. For example the regex : ([a-z]*) \1 matches a double occurence of the same word separated by a space (a a and b b but not b a nor a b). This cannot be recognized by a finite automaton at all.
These two Perlmonks threads discuss this question (specifically, read blokhead's responses):
Comparative satisfiability of regexps
Testing regex equivalence
I guess my question is best explained with an (simplified) example.
Regex 1:
^\d+_[a-z]+$
Regex 2:
^\d*$
Regex 1 will never match a string where regex 2 matches.
So let's say that regex 1 is orthogonal to regex 2.
As many people asked what I meant by orthogonal I'll try to clarify it:
Let S1 be the (infinite) set of strings where regex 1 matches.
S2 is the set of strings where regex 2 matches.
Regex 2 is orthogonal to regex 1 iff the intersection of S1 and S2 is empty.
The regex ^\d_a$ would be not orthogonal as the string '2_a' is in the set S1 and S2.
How can it be programmatically determined, if two regexes are orthogonal to each other?
Best case would be some library that implements a method like:
/**
* #return True if the regex is orthogonal (i.e. "intersection is empty"), False otherwise or Null if it can't be determined
*/
public Boolean isRegexOrthogonal(Pattern regex1, Pattern regex2);
By "Orthogonal" you mean "the intersection is the empty set" I take it?
I would construct the regular expression for the intersection, then convert to a regular grammar in normal form, and see if it's the empty language...
Then again, I'm a theorist...
I would construct the regular expression for the intersection, then convert to a regular grammar in normal form, and see if it's the empty language...
That seems like shooting sparrows with a cannon. Why not just construct the product automaton and check if an accept state is reachable from the initial state? That'll also give you a string in the intersection straight away without having to construct a regular expression first.
I would be a bit surprised to learn that there is a polynomial-time solution, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that it is equivalent to the halting problem.
I only know of a way to do it which involves creating a DFA from a regexp, which is exponential time (in the degenerate case). It's reducible to the halting problem, because everything is, but the halting problem is not reducible to it.
If the last, then you can use the fact that any RE can be translated into a finite state machine. Two finite state machines are equal if they have the same set of nodes, with the same arcs connecting those nodes.
So, given what I think you're using as a definition for orthogonal, if you translate your REs into FSMs and those FSMs are not equal, the REs are orthogonal.
That's not correct. You can have two DFAs (FSMs) that are non-isomorphic in the edge-labeled multigraph sense, but accept the same languages. Also, were that not the case, your test would check whether two regexps accepted non-identical, whereas OP wants non-overlapping languages (empty intersection).
Also, be aware that the \1, \2, ..., \9 construction is not regular: it can't be expressed in terms of concatenation, union and * (Kleene star). If you want to include back substitution, I don't know what the answer is. Also of interest is the fact that the corresponding problem for context-free languages is undecidable: there is no algorithm which takes two context-free grammars G1 and G2 and returns true iff L(G1) ∩ L(g2) ≠ Ø.
It's been two years since this question was posted, but I'm happy to say this can be determined now simply by calling the "genex" program here: https://github.com/audreyt/regex-genex
$ ./binaries/osx/genex '^\d+_[a-z]+$' '^\d*$'
$
The empty output means there is no strings that matches both regex. If they have any overlap, it will output the entire list of overlaps:
$ runghc Main.hs '\d' '[123abc]'
1.00000000 "2"
1.00000000 "3"
1.00000000 "1"
Hope this helps!
The fsmtools can do all kinds of operations on finite state machines, your only problem would be to convert the string representation of the regular expression into the format the fsmtools can work with. This is definitely possible for simple cases, but will be tricky in the presence of advanced features like look{ahead,behind}.
You might also have a look at OpenFst, although I've never used it. It supports intersection, though.
Excellent point on the \1, \2 bit... that's context free, and so not solvable. Minor point: Not EVERYTHING is reducible to Halt... Program Equivalence for example.. – Brian Postow
[I'm replying to a comment]
IIRC, a^n b^m a^n b^m is not context free, and so (a\*)(b\*)\1\2 isn't either since it's the same. ISTR { ww | w ∈ L } not being "nice" even if L is "nice", for nice being one of regular, context-free.
I modify my statement: everything in RE is reducible to the halting problem ;-)
I finally found exactly the library that I was looking for:
dk.brics.automaton
Usage:
/**
* #return true if the two regexes will never both match a given string
*/
public boolean isRegexOrthogonal( String regex1, String regex2 ) {
Automaton automaton1 = new RegExp(regex1).toAutomaton();
Automaton automaton2 = new RegExp(regex2).toAutomaton();
return automaton1.intersection(automaton2).isEmpty();
}
It should be noted that the implementation doesn't and can't support complex RegEx features like back references. See the blog post "A Faster Java Regex Package" which introduces dk.brics.automaton.
You can maybe use something like Regexp::Genex to generate test strings to match a specified regex and then use the test string on the 2nd regex to determine whether the 2 regexes are orthogonal.
Proving that one regular expression is orthogonal to another can be trivial in some cases, such as mutually exclusive character groups in the same locations. For any but the simplest regular expressions this is a nontrivial problem. For serious expressions, with groups and backreferences, I would go so far as to say that this may be impossible.
I believe kdgregory is correct you're using Orthogonal to mean Complement.
Is this correct?
Let me start by saying that I have no idea how to construct such an algorithm, nor am I aware of any library that implements it. However, I would not be at all surprised to learn that nonesuch exists for general regular expressions of arbitrary complexity.
Every regular expression defines a regular language of all the strings that can be generated by the expression, or if you prefer, of all the strings that are "matched by" the regular expression. Think of the language as a set of strings. In most cases, the set will be infinitely large. Your question asks whether the intersections of the two sets given by the regular expressions is empty or not.
At least to a first approximation, I can't imagine a way to answer that question without computing the sets, which for infinite sets will take longer than you have. I think there might be a way to compute a limited set and determine when a pattern is being elaborated beyond what is required by the other regex, but it would not be straightforward.
For example, just consider the simple expressions (ab)* and (aba)*b. What is the algorithm that will decide to generate abab from the first expression and then stop, without checking ababab, abababab, etc. because they will never work? You can't just generate strings and check until a match is found because that would never complete when the languages are disjoint. I can't imagine anything that would work in the general case, but then there are folks much better than me at this kind of thing.
All in all, this is a hard problem. I would be a bit surprised to learn that there is a polynomial-time solution, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that it is equivalent to the halting problem. Although, given that regular expressions are not Turing complete, it seems at least possible that a solution exists.
I would do the following:
convert each regex to a FSA, using something like the following structure:
struct FSANode
{
bool accept;
Map<char, FSANode> links;
}
List<FSANode> nodes;
FSANode start;
Note that this isn't trivial, but for simple regex shouldn't be that difficult.
Make a new Combined Node like:
class CombinedNode
{
CombinedNode(FSANode left, FSANode right)
{
this.left = left;
this.right = right;
}
Map<char, CombinedNode> links;
bool valid { get { return !left.accept || !right.accept; } }
public FSANode left;
public FSANode right;
}
Build up links based on following the same char on the left and right sides, and you get two FSANodes which make a new CombinedNode.
Then start at CombinedNode(leftStart, rightStart), and find the spanning set, and if there are any non-valid CombinedNodes, the set isn't "orthogonal."
Convert each regular expression into a DFA. From the accept state of one DFA create an epsilon transition to the start state of the second DFA. You will in effect have created an NFA by adding the epsilon transition. Then convert the NFA into a DFA. If the start state is not the accept state, and the accept state is reachable, then the two regular expressions are not "orthogonal." (Since their intersection is non-empty.)
There are know procedures for converting a regular expression to a DFA, and converting an NFA to a DFA. You could look at a book like "Introduction to the Theory of Computation" by Sipser for the procedures, or just search around the web. No doubt many undergrads and grads had to do this for one "theory" class or another.
I spoke too soon. What I said in my original post would not work out, but there is a procedure for what you are trying to do if you can convert your regular expressions into DFA form.
You can find the procedure in the book I mentioned in my first post: "Introduction to the Theory of Computation" 2nd edition by Sipser. It's on page 46, with details in the footnote.
The procedure would give you a new DFA that is the intersection of the two DFAs. If the new DFA had a reachable accept state then the intersection is non-empty.