Advertisement

Combinatorica

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 385–392 | Cite as

Query complexity, or why is it difficult to separateNP A ∩coNP A fromP A by random oraclesA?

  • G. Tardos
Article

Abstract

By thequery-time complexity of a relativized algorithm we mean the total length of oracle queries made; thequery-space complexity is the maximum length of the queries made. With respect to these cost measures one can define polynomially time- or space-bounded 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 NPA∩ ∩ co NPA fromPA 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 query-time-bounded nondeterministic oracle Turing machines accept precisely complementary (oracle dependent) languages LA and {0, 1}*∖LA under every oracle A then there exists a deterministic polynomially query-time-bounded oracle Turing machine that accept LA. 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 non-uniform version of the conjecture. Thereby we reduce the question to a combinatorial problem on certain pairs of sets of partial functions on finite sets.

AMS subject classification (1980)

68Q15 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. V.Aho, J. D.Ullman and M.Yannakakis, On Notions of Information Transfer in VLSI Circuits,Proc. 15th STOC,1983, 133–139.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    L.Babai, Trading group theory for randomness,Proc. 17th STOC (1985), 421–429.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L.Babai, Random oracles separatePSPACE from the polynomial time hierarchy, Technical Report 86-001 (1986), Dept. Comp. Sci., Univ. of Chicago; to appear inInf. Proc. Letters.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L.Babai, Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system and a short hierarchy of complexity classes,JCSS, to appear.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. Baker, J. Gill andR. Solovay, Relativizations of theP=?NP question,SIAM J. Comp.,4 (1975), 431–442.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. H. Bennett andJ. Gill, Relative to a random oracleA, P A≠NPA≠coNPA with probability 1,SIAM J. Comp.,10 (1981), 96–113.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.Blum and R.Impagliazzo, Generic oracles and oracle classes,Proc. 28th FOCS (1987), 118–126. Extended Abstract.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. V. Book, Bounded query machines: onNP andPSPACE, Theoretical Computer Science,15 (1981), 27–39.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. V. Book, T. J. Long andA. L. Selman, Quantitative relativization of complexity classes,SIAM J. Comp.,13 (1984), 461–487.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. V. Book andC. Wrathall, Bounded query machines: on NP(and NPQUERY),Theoretical Computer Science,15 (1981), 41–50.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Y.Cai, With Probability One A Random Oracle SeparatesPSPACE from the Polynomial Hierarchy,Proc. 18th STOC (1986), 21–29.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. L.Furst, J.Saxe and M.Sipser, Parity, circuits, and the polynomial time hierarchy,Proc. 22nd FOCS (1981), 260–270.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S.Goldwasser, S.Micaly and C.Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proofsystems,Proc. 17th STOC,1985, 291–304.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S.Goldwasser and M.Sipser, Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems,Proc. 18th STOC (1986), 59–68.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.Hartmanis and L. A.Hemachandra, One-way functions, robustness, and the non-isomorphism of NP-complete sets,Proc. 2nd Structurde in Complexity Theory, (87), 160–173.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. A.Kurtz, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis,Proc. 14th STOC (1982), 224–230.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. A. Kurtz, A Note on Randomized Polynomial Time,SIAM J. Comp.,16 (1987), 852–853.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    N.Nisan, Probabilistic vc. Deterministic Decision Trees and CREW PRAM Complexity,preprint.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    V. R.Pratt, Every Prime Has a Succinct Certificate,SIAM J. Comp., (1975), 214–220.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M.Sipser, Borel sets and circuit complexity,Proc. 15th STOC (1983), 61–69.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. C.-C.Yao, Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles,Proc. 26th FOCS (1985), 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Tardos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AlgebraEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations