Query complexity, or why is it difficult to separateNP ^{ A } ∩coNP ^{ A } fromP ^{ A } by random oraclesA?
 G. Tardos
 … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discount
Rent now* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Get AccessAbstract
By thequerytime complexity of a relativized algorithm we mean the total length of oracle queries made; thequeryspace complexity is the maximum length of the queries made. With respect to these cost measures one can define polynomially time or spacebounded deterministic, nondeterministic, alternating, etc. Turing machines and the corresponding complexity classes. It turns out that all known relativized separation results operate essentially with this cost measure. Therefore, if certain classes do not separate in the query complexity model, this can be taken as an indication that their relativized separation in the classical cost model will require entirely new principles.
A notable unresolved question in relativized complexity theory is the separation of NP^{A}∩ ∩ co NP^{A} fromP ^{A} under random oraclesA. We conjecture that the analogues of these classes actually coincide in the query complexity model, thus indicating an answer to the question in the title. As a first step in the direction of establishing the conjecture, we prove the following result, where polynomial bounds refer to query complexity.
If two polynomially querytimebounded nondeterministic oracle Turing machines accept precisely complementary (oracle dependent) languages L^{A} and {0, 1}^{*}∖L^{A} under every oracle A then there exists a deterministic polynomially querytimebounded oracle Turing machine that accept L^{A}. The proof involves a sort of greedy strategy to selecting deterministically, from the large set of prospective queries of the two nondeterministic machines, a small subset that suffices to perform an accepting computation in one of the nondeterministic machines. We describe additional algorithmic strategies that may resolve the same problem when the condition holds for a (1−ε) fraction of the oracles A, a step that would bring us to a nonuniform version of the conjecture. Thereby we reduce the question to a combinatorial problem on certain pairs of sets of partial functions on finite sets.
 A. V.Aho, J. D.Ullman and M.Yannakakis, On Notions of Information Transfer in VLSI Circuits,Proc. 15th STOC,1983, 133–139.
 L.Babai, Trading group theory for randomness,Proc. 17th STOC (1985), 421–429.
 L.Babai, Random oracles separatePSPACE from the polynomial time hierarchy, Technical Report 86001 (1986), Dept. Comp. Sci., Univ. of Chicago; to appear inInf. Proc. Letters.
 L.Babai, ArthurMerlin games: a randomized proof system and a short hierarchy of complexity classes,JCSS, to appear.
 T. Baker, J. Gill andR. Solovay, Relativizations of theP=?NP question,SIAM J. Comp.,4 (1975), 431–442.
 C. H. Bennett andJ. Gill, Relative to a random oracleA, P ^{A}≠NP^{A}≠coNP^{A} with probability 1,SIAM J. Comp.,10 (1981), 96–113.
 M.Blum and R.Impagliazzo, Generic oracles and oracle classes,Proc. 28th FOCS (1987), 118–126. Extended Abstract.
 R. V. Book, Bounded query machines: onNP andPSPACE, Theoretical Computer Science,15 (1981), 27–39.
 R. V. Book, T. J. Long andA. L. Selman, Quantitative relativization of complexity classes,SIAM J. Comp.,13 (1984), 461–487.
 R. V. Book andC. Wrathall, Bounded query machines: on NP(and NPQUERY),Theoretical Computer Science,15 (1981), 41–50.
 J. Y.Cai, With Probability One A Random Oracle SeparatesPSPACE from the Polynomial Hierarchy,Proc. 18th STOC (1986), 21–29.
 M. L.Furst, J.Saxe and M.Sipser, Parity, circuits, and the polynomial time hierarchy,Proc. 22nd FOCS (1981), 260–270.
 S.Goldwasser, S.Micaly and C.Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proofsystems,Proc. 17th STOC,1985, 291–304.
 S.Goldwasser and M.Sipser, Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems,Proc. 18th STOC (1986), 59–68.
 J.Hartmanis and L. A.Hemachandra, Oneway functions, robustness, and the nonisomorphism of NPcomplete sets,Proc. 2nd Structurde in Complexity Theory, (87), 160–173.
 S. A.Kurtz, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis,Proc. 14th STOC (1982), 224–230.
 S. A. Kurtz, A Note on Randomized Polynomial Time,SIAM J. Comp.,16 (1987), 852–853.
 N.Nisan, Probabilistic vc. Deterministic Decision Trees and CREW PRAM Complexity,preprint.
 V. R.Pratt, Every Prime Has a Succinct Certificate,SIAM J. Comp., (1975), 214–220.
 M.Sipser, Borel sets and circuit complexity,Proc. 15th STOC (1983), 61–69.
 A. C.C.Yao, Separating the polynomialtime hierarchy by oracles,Proc. 26th FOCS (1985), 1–10.
 Title
 Query complexity, or why is it difficult to separateNP ^{ A } ∩coNP ^{ A } fromP ^{ A } by random oraclesA?
 Journal

Combinatorica
Volume 9, Issue 4 , pp 385392
 Cover Date
 19891201
 DOI
 10.1007/BF02125350
 Print ISSN
 02099683
 Online ISSN
 14396912
 Publisher
 SpringerVerlag
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Keywords

 68Q15
 Industry Sectors
 Authors

 G. Tardos ^{(1)}
 Author Affiliations

 1. Department of Algebra, Eötvös University, Múzeum krt. 68, H1088, Budapest, Hungary