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


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 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 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  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.

  2. [2]

    L.Babai, Trading group theory for randomness,Proc. 17th STOC (1985), 421–429.

  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.

  4. [4]

    L.Babai, Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system and a short hierarchy of complexity classes,JCSS, to appear.

  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.

  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.

  12. [12]

    M. L.Furst, J.Saxe and M.Sipser, Parity, circuits, and the polynomial time hierarchy,Proc. 22nd FOCS (1981), 260–270.

  13. [13]

    S.Goldwasser, S.Micaly and C.Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proofsystems,Proc. 17th STOC,1985, 291–304.

  14. [14]

    S.Goldwasser and M.Sipser, Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems,Proc. 18th STOC (1986), 59–68.

  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.

  16. [16]

    S. A.Kurtz, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis,Proc. 14th STOC (1982), 224–230.

  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.

  19. [19]

    V. R.Pratt, Every Prime Has a Succinct Certificate,SIAM J. Comp., (1975), 214–220.

  20. [20]

    M.Sipser, Borel sets and circuit complexity,Proc. 15th STOC (1983), 61–69.

  21. [21]

    A. C.-C.Yao, Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles,Proc. 26th FOCS (1985), 1–10.

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tardos, G. Query complexity, or why is it difficult to separateNP A ∩coNP A fromP A by random oraclesA?. Combinatorica 9, 385–392 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02125350

Download citation

AMS subject classification (1980)

  • 68Q15