T. Colcombet, Unambiguity in automata theory, Proceedings of DCFS 2015, pp.3-18, 2015.

W. Czerwi?ski, S. Lasota, R. Meyer, S. Muskalla, K. N. Kumar et al., Regular separability of well-structured transition systems, 18. Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, vol.118, pp.1-35, 2018.

S. Demri and R. Lazic, LTL with the freeze quantifier and register automata, ACM Trans. Comput. Log, vol.10, issue.3, 2009.

J. Fearnley and M. Jurdzi?ski, Reachability in two-clock timed automata is PSPACEcomplete, Inf. Comput, vol.243, pp.26-36, 2015.

P. Hofman and P. Totzke, Trace inclusion for one-counter nets revisited, Proceedings of RP 2014, vol.8762, pp.151-162, 2014.

P. Jan?ar, J. Esparza, and F. Moller, Petri nets and regular processes, J. Comput. Syst. Sci, vol.59, issue.3, pp.476-503, 1999.

R. M. Karp, Reducibility among combinatorial problems, Proceedings of a symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations, pp.85-103, 1972.

R. Lipton, The reachability problem requires exponential space, vol.62, 1976.

A. Mottet and K. Quaas, The containment problem for unambiguous register automata, Proceedings of STACS 2019, vol.53, p.15, 2019.

F. Neven, T. Schwentick, and V. Vianu, Finite state machines for strings over infinite alphabets, ACM Trans. Comput. Log, vol.5, issue.3, pp.403-435, 2004.

C. Rackoff, The covering and boundedness problems for vector addition systems, Theor. Comput. Sci, vol.6, pp.223-231, 1978.

M. Raskin, A superpolynomial lower bound for the size of non-deterministic complement of an unambiguous automaton, Proceedings of ICALP 2018, vol.138, pp.1-138, 2018.

G. Sénizergues, L(A)=L(B)? decidability results from complete formal systems, Theor. Comput. Sci, vol.251, issue.1-2, pp.1-166, 2001.

R. E. Stearns, H. B. Hunt, and I. , On the equivalence and containment problems for unambiguous regular expressions, regular grammars and finite automata, SIAM J. Comput, vol.14, issue.3, pp.598-611, 1985.

, We finally show that B is universal if, and only if, there is no N -bounded run from q(0) to p(m) in A. Observe first that for every word w ? ? * there is exactly one run of B reading w. If there is an N -bounded run ? from q(0) to p(m) in A, it follows that the run of B reading ? ends in the sink state ?, and thus ? ? L(B), witnessing the fact that B is not universal. If, on the other hand, there is a run of B ending in state ?, it must be reading a word of the form ? where ? is an N -bounded run from q(0) to p(m) in A. Since ? is the sole state which is not accepting and since, as observed before, for all words there is a run