Cluster Computing and the Power of Edge Recognition

  • Lane A. Hemaspaandra
  • Christopher M. Homan
  • Sven Kosub
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3959)

Abstract

Although complexity theory already extensively studies path-cardinality-based restrictions on the power of nondeterminism, this paper is motivated by a more recent goal: To gain insight into how much of a restriction it is of nondeterminism to limit machines to have just one contiguous (with respect to some simple order) interval of accepting paths. In particular, we study the robustness—the invariance under definition changes—of the cluster class CL#P [8]. This class contains each #P function that is computed by a balanced Turing machine whose accepting paths always form a cluster with respect to some length-respecting total order with efficient adjacency checks. The definition of CL#P is heavily influenced by the defining paper’s focus on (global) orders. In contrast, we define a cluster class, CLU#P, to capture what seems to us a more natural model of cluster computing. We prove that the naturalness is costless: CL#P = CLU#P. Then we exploit the more natural, flexible features of CLU#P to prove new robustness results for CL#P and to expand what is known about the closure properties of CL#P.

The complexity of recognizing edges—of an ordered collection of computation paths or of a cluster of accepting computation paths—is central to this study. Most particularly, our proofs exploit the power of unique discovery of edges—the ability of nondeterministic functions to, in certain settings, discover on exactly one (in some cases, on at most one) computation path a critical piece of information regarding edges of orderings or clusters.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balcázar, J., Díaz, J., Gabarró, J.: Structural Complexity II. EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Balcázar, J., Díaz, J., Gabarró, J.: Structural Complexity I, 2nd edn. EATCS Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Book, R., Long, T., Selman, A.: Quantitative relativizations of complexity classes. SIAM J. Comput. 13(3), 461–487 (1984)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Book, R., Long, T., Selman, A.: Qualitative relativizations of complexity classes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 30(3), 395–413 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai, J., Gundermann, T., Hartmanis, J., Hemachandra, L., Sewelson, V., Wagner, K., Wechsung, G.: The boolean hierarchy I: Structural properties. SIAM J. Comput. 17(6), 1232–1252 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Grollmann, J., Selman, A.: Complexity measures for public-key cryptosystems. SIAM J. Comput. 17(2), 309–335 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Hemaspaandra, L., Homan, C., Kosub, S.: Cluster computing and the power of edge recognition. Technical Report TR-878, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (September 2005)Google Scholar
  8. Hemaspaandra, L., Homan, C., Kosub, S., Wagner, K.: The complexity of computing the size of an interval. Technical Report TR-856, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (February 2005) [9] This is an expanded version ofGoogle Scholar
  9. Hemaspaandra, L., Kosub, S., Wagner, K.: The complexity of computing the size of an interval. In: Orejas, F., Spirakis, P.G., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2076, pp. 1040–1051. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kosub, S.: A note on unambiguous function classes. Inf. Process. Lett. 72(5–6), 197–203 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Meyer, A., Paterson, M.: With what frequency are apparently intractable problems difficult? Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-126, Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA (1979)Google Scholar
  12. : Optimal algorithms for self-reducible problems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pp. 322–337. Edinburgh University Press (1976)Google Scholar
  13. Selman, A.: A note on adaptive vs. nonadaptive reductions to NP. Technical Report 90-20, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY (September 1990)Google Scholar
  14. Selman, A.: A taxonomy of complexity classes of functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 48(2), 357–381 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Wagner, K.: Bounded query classes. SIAM J. Comput. 19(5), 833–846 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lane A. Hemaspaandra
    • 1
  • Christopher M. Homan
    • 2
  • Sven Kosub
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceRochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Fakultät für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations