Acta Informatica

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 325–356 | Cite as

The complexity of combinatorial problems with succinct input representation

  • Klaus W. Wagner


Several languages for the succinct representation of the instances of combinatorial problems are investigated. These languages have been introduced in [20, 2] and [5] where it has been shown that describing the instances by these languages causes a blow-up of the complexities of some problems. In the present paper the descriptional power of these languages is compared by estimating the complexities of some combinatorial problems in terms of completeness in suitable classes of the “counting polynomial-time hierarchy” which is introduced here. It turns out that some of the languages are not comparable, unless P=NP Some problems left open in [2] are solved.


Information System Operating System Data Structure Communication Network Information Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Angluin, D.: On counting problems and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Theor. Comput. Sci. 12, 161–173 (1980)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bentley, J.L., Ottmann, T., Widmayer, P.: The complexity of manipulating hierarchically defined sets of rectangles. Adv. Comput. Res. 1, 127–158 (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gill, J.: Computational complexity of probabilistic Turing machines. SIAM J. Comput. 6, 675–695 (1977)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractibility: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. San Francisco: Freeman 1979Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galperin, H., Wigderson, A.: Succinct representations of graphs. Inf. Control. 56, 183–198 (1983)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartmanis, J.: Generalized Kolmogorov complexity and the structure of feasible computations. Proc. 24th Ann. Symp. Found. of Comp. Sci. 439–445 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lautemann, C: BPP and the polynomial hierarchy. IPL 17, 215–217 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ladner, R.E.: The circuit value problem is logspace complete for P. SIGACT News 7, 18–20 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lengauer, T.: The complexity of compacting hierarchically specified layouts of integrated circuits. Proc. 23rd Ann. Symp. on Found, of Comp. Sci. 358–368 (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lengauer, T.: Hierarchical planarity testing algorithms. TR-SFB 124, FB 10 Univ. d. Saarlandes, Saarbrücken 1984Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lengauer, T.: Hierarchical graph algorithms, TR-SFB 124, 15/84, FB 10 Univ. d. Saarlandes, Saarbrücken 1984Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lengauer, T.: Efficient solution of connectivity problems on hierarchically defined graphs. Rep. No. 24, Series Theoretische Informatik, Universität Paderborn 1985Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lynch, N.A.: Log space recognition and translation of parenthesis languages. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 24, 583–590 (1977)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, A.R.: Weak monadic second order theory of successor is not elementary recursive. Proc. 14th Ann. Symp. on Switch and Autom Theory 190–196 (1973)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: On the complexity of unique solution. Proc. 23rd Ann. Symp. on Found. of Comp. Sci. 14–20 (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: The complexity of facets (and some facets of complexity). Proc. 14th ACM Symp. on Theory of Comp. 255–260 (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Zachos, S.K.: Two remarks on the power of counting. (Preprint 1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schöning, U.: On small generators. Theor. Comput. Sci. 34, 337–341 (1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon, J.: On the difference between one and many. Proc. 14th Intern. Coll. on Autom., Lang. and Progr., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 52, 480–491 (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stockmeyer, L.J., Meyer, A.R.: Word problems requiring exponential time. Proc. 5th ACM Symp. on Theory of Comp. 1–9 (1973)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stockmeyer, L.J.: The polynomial-time hierarchy, Theor. Comput. Sci. 3, 1–22 (1977)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stockmeyer, L.J.: The complexity of approximate counting. Proc. 15th ACM Symp. on Theory of Comp. 118–126 (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of computing the permanent. Theor. Comput. Sci. 8, 189–201 (1979)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, K.: Compact descriptions and the counting polynomial-time hierarchy. Proc. 2nd Frege Conf. 383–392 (1984)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wagner, K.: The complexity of problems concerning graphs with regularities. Proc. 11th Symp. on Math. Found. of Comp. Sci., Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 176, 544–552 (1984)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagner, K.: Some observations on the connection between counting and recursion. (To appear in Theor. Comput. Sci.)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wagner, K.: More complicated questions about maxima and minima, and some closures of NP. (Manuscript 1985)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wrathall, C.: Complete sets and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Theor. Comput. Sci. 3, 23–33 (1977)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wagner, K., Wechsung, G.: Computational Complexity. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften 1985Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yao, A.C.: Seperating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles. (To appear in the Proc. of 26th Ann. Symp. on Found. of Comp. Sci. 1985)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zachos, S.K.: Collapsing polynomial hierarchies. Proc. of a Conf. on Comp. Compl. Theory, Santa Barbara 75–81 (1983)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zachos, S.K., Heller, H.: A decisive characterization of BPP. (Manuscript 1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus W. Wagner
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für InformatikUniversität PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations