Small Complexity Classes for Computable Analysis

  • Akitoshi Kawamura
  • Hiroyuki Ota
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8635)


Type-two Theory of Effectivity (TTE) provides a general framework for Computable Analysis. To refine it to polynomial-time computability while keeping as much generality as possible, Kawamura and Cook recently proposed a modification to TTE using machines that have random access to an oracle and run in time depending on the “size” of the oracle. They defined type-two analogues of P, NP, PSPACE and applied them to real functions and operators. We further refine their model and study computation below P: type-two analogues of the classes L, NC, and P-completeness under log-space reductions. The basic idea is to use second-order polynomials as resource bounds, as Kawamura and Cook did, but we need to make some nontrivial (yet natural, as we will argue) choices when formulating small classes in order to make them well-behaved. Most notably: we use a modification of the constant stack model of Aehlig, Cook and Nguyen for query tapes in order to allow sufficient oracle accesses without interfering with space bounds; representations need to be chosen carefully, as computational equivalence between them is now finer; uniformity of circuits must be defined with varying sizes of oracles taken into account. As prototypical applications, we recast several facts (some in a stronger form than was known) about the complexity of numerical problems into our framework.


Real Function Logarithmic Space Oracle Access Output Tape String Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aehlig, K., Cook, S., Nguyen, P.: Relativizing small complexity classes and their theories. In: Duparc, J., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CSL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4646, pp. 374–388. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambos-Spies, K., Brandt, U., Ziegler, M.: Real benefit of promises and advice. In: Bonizzoni, P., Brattka, V., Löwe, B. (eds.) CiE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7921, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beame, P., Cook, S., Edmonds, J., Impagliazzo, R., Pitassi, T.: The relative complexity of NP search problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 57(1), 3–19 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brattka, V., Hertling, P., Weihrauch, K.: A tutorial on computable analysis. In: New Computational Paradigms. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buss, J.F.: Relativized alternation and space-bounded computation. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 36(3), 351–378 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiu, A., Davida, G., Litow, B.: Division in logspace-uniform NC1. RAIRO-Theoretical Informatics and Applications 35(03), 259–275 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Férée, H., Hoyrup, M.: Higher-order complexity in analysis. In: Proc. CCA 2013, pp. 22–35 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoover, H.J.: Real functions, contraction mappings, and P-completeness. Information and Computation 93(2), 333–349 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kawamura, A.: On function spaces and polynomial-time computability. Dagstuhl Seminar 11411: Computing with Infinite Data (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawamura, A., Cook, S.: Complexity theory for operators in analysis. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory 4(2), Article 5 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ko, K.I.: Complexity theory of real functions. Birkhauser Boston Inc. (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ladner, R.E., Lynch, N.A.: Relativization of questions about log space computability. Theory of Computing Systems 10(1), 19–32 (1976)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neff, C.A.: Specified precision polynomial root isolation is in NC. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 48(3), 429–463 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rettinger, R.: Computational complexity in analysis (extended abstract). In: CCA 2013, pp. 100–109 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rösnick, C.: Closed sets and operators thereon: representations, computability and complexity. In: Proc. CCA 2013, pp. 110–121 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weihrauch, K.: Computable Analysis: An Introduction. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson, C.B.: A measure of relativized space which is faithful with respect to depth. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 36(3), 303–312 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ziegler, M.: Real computation with least discrete advice: A complexity theory of nonuniform computability with applications to effective linear algebra. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163(8), 1108–1139 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akitoshi Kawamura
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Ota
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations