computational complexity

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 41–66 | Cite as

Arithmetization: A new method in structural complexity theory

  • László Babai
  • Lance Fortnow
Article

Abstract

We introduce a technique of arithmetization of the process of computation in order to obtain novel characterizations of certain complexity classes viamultivariate polynomials. A variety of concepts and tools of elementary algebra, such as the degree of polynomials and interpolation, becomes thereby available for the study of complexity classes.

The theory to be described provides a unified framework from which powerful recent results follow naturally.

The central result is a characterization of #P in terms ofarithmetic straight line programs. The consequences include a simplified proof of Toda's Theorem thatPH ⊂P#P; and an infinite class of natural and potentially inequivalent functions, checkable in the sense of Blum et al. Similar characterizations of PSPACE are also given.

The arithmetization technique has been introduced independently by Adi Shamir. While this simultaneous discovery was driven by applications to interactive proofs, the present paper demonstrates the applicability of this technique to classical complexity classes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Babai, Trading group theory for randomness, inProc. 17th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1985, 421–429.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Babai, E-mail and the unexpected power of interaction, inProc. 5th Ann. IEEE Structures in Complexity Theory Conf., 1990, 30–44.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. Babai and L. Fortnow, A characterization of #P by arithmetic straight line programs, inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1990, 26–34.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. Babai, L. Fortnow, andC. Lund, Nondeterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols,Computational Complexity 1 (1991), 3–40. Extended Abstract inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1990, 16–25.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Babai andS. Moran, Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system, and a hierarchy of complexity classes,Journal Comp. Sys. Sci. 36 (1988), 254–276.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Beaver and J. Feigenbaum, Hiding instances in multioracle queries, inProc. 7th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Comp. Sci., Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 415 (1990), 37–48.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Beigel, J. Gill, and U. Hertrampf, Counting classes: thresholds, parity, mods, and fewness, inProc. 7th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Comp. Sci., Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 415 (1990), 49–57.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Blum, Designing programs that check their work, submitted toComm. of Assoc. Comput. Mach. Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Blum and S. Kannan, Designing programs that check their work, inProc. 21st Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1989, 86–97.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Blum, M. Luby, and R. Rubinfeld, Self-testing and self-correcting programs, with applications to numerical programs, inProc. 22nd Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1990, 73–83.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Beigel, N. Reingold and D. Spielman, PP is Closed under Intersection, inProc. 23rd Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1991, to appear.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    A. Chandra, D. Kozen, andL. Stockmeyer, Alternation,J. Assoc. Comput. Mach 28 (1981), 114–133.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Feigenbaum and L. Fortnow, On the random-self-reducibility of complete sets,University of Chicago Technical Report 90-22, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Fenner, L. Fortnow, and S. Kurtz, Gap-definable counting classes,University of Chicago Technical Report 90-32, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. Garey and D. Johnson,Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1979Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, andC. Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proofs,SIAM J. Comput. 18 (1989), 186–208. (Preliminary version appeared inProc. 18th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1985, 291–304.)Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. Goldwasser and M. Sipser, Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems, inRandomness in Computation, S. Micali, ed.,Advances in Computing Research 5, JAI Press, 1989, 73–90.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    O. Goldreich, S. Micali, and A. Wigderson, Proofs that yield nothing but their validity and a methodology of cryptographic protocol design, inProc. 27th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1986, 174–187.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R. Lipton, New directions in testing, inProceedings of the DIMACS Workshop on Distributed Computing and Cryptography, 1989, to appear.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    C. Lund, L. Fortnow, H. Karloff, and N. Nisan, Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems, inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci.,1990, 1–10.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. A. Razborov, Lower bounds for the size of circuits of bounded depth with a complete basis including the logical addition function (in Russian),Matem. Zametki 41 (1981), 598–607. (English translation inMath. Notes of the Acad. Sci. USSR 41:4, 333–338.)Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    U. Schöning, Probabilistic complexity classes and lowness, inProc. 2nd Ann. IEEE Structure in Complexity Theory Conf., 1987, 2–8.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. Shamir, IP=PSPACE, inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1990, 11–15.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Smolensky, Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity, inProc. 19th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1987, 77–82.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    L. Stockmeyer, The Polynomial-time hierarchy,Theoretical Computer Science 3 (1977), 1–22.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    S. Toda, On the computational powel of PP and ⊕P, inProc. 30th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci, 1989, 514–519.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    L. Valiant, The complexity of computing the permanent,Theoretical Computer Science 8 (1979), 189–201.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    L. Valiant andV. Vazirani, NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions,Theoretical Computer Science 47 (1986), 85–93.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    H. Venkateswaran, Circuit definitions of nondeterministic complexity classes, inProc. 8th FST & TCS, Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci 338 (1988), 175–192.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    V. Zankó, #P-completeness via many-one reductions,Internat. J. of Foundat. Comp. Sci., to appearGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Babai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lance Fortnow
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Eötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ChicagoChicago

Personalised recommendations