Separating the Notions of Self- and Autoreducibility

  • Piotr Faliszewski
  • Mitsunori Ogihara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3618)

Abstract

Recently Glaßer et al. have shown that for many classes C including PSPACE and NP it holds that all of its nontrivial many-one complete languages are autoreducible. This immediately raises the question of whether all many-one complete languages are Turing self-reducible for such classes C.

This paper considers a simpler version of this question—whether all PSPACE-complete (NP-complete) languages are length-decreasing self-reducible. We show that if all PSPACE-complete languages are length-decreasing self-reducible then PSPACE = P and that if all NP-complete languages are length-decreasing self-reducible then NP = P.

The same type of result holds for many other natural complexity classes. In particular, we show that (1) not all NL-complete sets are logspace length-decreasing self-reducible, (2) unconditionally not all PSPACE-complete languages are logpsace length-decreasing self-reducible, and (3) unconditionally not all PSPACE-complete languages are polynomial-time length-decreasing self-reducible.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Meyer, A., Paterson, M.: With what frequency are apparently intractable problems difficult? Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-126, Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schnorr, C.: Optimal algorithms for self-reducible problems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pp. 322–337 (1976)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ladner, R.: Mitotic recursively enumerable sets. Journal of Symbolic Logic 38, 199–211 (1973)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambos-Spies, K.: P-mitotic sets. In: Logic and Machines, pp. 1–23 (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yao, A.: Coherent functions and program checkers. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 84–94. ACM Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balcázar, J.: Self-reducibility. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 41, 367–388 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abadi, M., Feigenbaum, J., Kilian, J.: On hiding information from an oracle. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 39, 21–50 (1989)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beigel, R., Feigenbaum, J.: On being incoherent without being very hard. Computational Complexity 2, 1–17 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glaßer, C., Ogihara, M., Pavan, A., Selman, A., Zhang, L.: Autoreducibility, mitoticity, and immunity. Technical Report TR05-011, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (2005), http://www.eccc.uni-trier.de/eccc/
  10. 10.
    Buhrman, H., Torenvliet, L.: P-selective self-reducible sets: A new characterization of P. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 53, 210–217 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Köbler, J., Watanabe, O.: New collapse consequences of NP having small circuits. SIAM Journal on Computing 28, 311–324 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bovet, D., Crescenzi, P.: Introduction to the Theory of Complexity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadimitriou, C.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piotr Faliszewski
    • 1
  • Mitsunori Ogihara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations