Sparse Selfreducible Sets and Polynomial Size Circuit Lower Bounds
It is well-known that the class of sets that can be computed by polynomial size circuits is equal to the class of sets that are polynomial time reducible to a sparse set. It is widely believed, but unfortunately up to now unproven, that there are sets in EXPNP, or even in EXP that are not computable by polynomial size circuits and hence are not reducible to a sparse set. In this paper we study this question in a more restricted setting: what is the computational complexity of sparse sets that are selfreducible? It follows from earlier work of Lozano and Toran  that EXPNP does not have sparse selfreducible hard sets. We define a natural version of selfreduction, tree-selfreducibility, and show that NEXP does not have sparse tree-selfreducible hard sets. We also show that this result is optimal with respect to relativizing proofs, by exhibiting an oracle relative to which all of EXP is reducible to a sparse tree-selfreducible set. These lower bounds are corollaries of more general results about the computational complexity of sparse sets that are selfreducible, and can be interpreted as super-polynomial circuit lower bounds for NEXP.
KeywordsComputational Complexity Sparseness Selfreducibility
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Buhrman, H., Fortnow, L., Thierauf, T.: Nonrelativizing separations. In: IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 8–12. IEE Computer Society Press (1998)Google Scholar
- 6.Fortnow, L., Klivans, A.: NP with small advice. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE Conference on Computationa Complexity, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Hemaspaandra, L., Torenvliet, L.: Theory of Semi-Feasible Algorithms. In: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
- 10.Lozano, A., Torán, J.: Self-reducible sets of small density. Mathematical Systems Theory (1991)Google Scholar
- 11.Meyer, A.: oral communication. cited in  (1977)Google Scholar
- 12.Mocas, S.: Separating Exponential Time Classes from Polynomial Time Classes. PhD thesis, Northeastern University (1993)Google Scholar
- 18.Shaltiel, R., Umans, C.: Pseudorandomness for approximate counting and sampling. Technical Report TR04-086, ECCC (2004)Google Scholar
- 19.Wagner, K.: Bounded query computations. In: Proc. 3rd Structure in Complexity in Conference, pp. 260–278. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1988)Google Scholar