# Improved lowness results for solvable black-box group problems

## Abstract

In order to study the complexity of computational problems that arise from group theory in a general framework, Babai and Szemerédi [4, 2] introduced the theory of black-box groups. They proved that several problems over black-box groups are in the class NP ∩ co-AM, thereby implying that these problems are *low* (powerless as oracle) for *∑* _{2} ^{ p } and hence cannot be complete for NP unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses.

In [1], Arvind and Vinodchandran study the counting complexity of a number of computational problems over solvable groups. Using a constructive version of a fundamental structure theorem about finite abelian groups and a randomized algorithm from [3] for computing generator sets for the commutator series of any solvable group, they prove that these problems are in randomized versions of low complexity counting classes like SPP and LWPP and hence *low* for the class PP.

In this paper, we improve the upper bounds of [1] for these problems. More precisely, we avoid the randomized algorithm from [3] for computing the commutator series. This immediately places all these problems in either SPP or LWPP. These upper bounds imply lowness of these problems for classes other than PP. In particular, SPP is low for all gap-definable counting classes [9] (PP, C=P, Mod_{k}P etc) and LWPP is known to be low for PP and C=P. These results are in favor of the belief that these problems are unlikely to be complete for NP.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.V. Arvind and N. V. Vinodchandran. Solvable Black-Box Group Problems are low for PP.
*Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science*, LNCS Vol: 1046, 99–110, 1996.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 2.L. Babai. Bounded round interactive proofs in finite groups.
*SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics*, 5: 88–111, 1992.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.L. Babai, G. Cooperman, L. Finkelstein, E. Luks and á. Seress. Fast Monte Carlo algorithms for permutation groups. In
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, 50: 296–308, 1995.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.L. Babai and M. Szemerédi. On the complexity of matrix group problems I.
*Proc. 25th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*, 229–240, 1984.Google Scholar - 5.J. L. Balcázar, J. Díaz and J. Gabarró.
*Structural Complexity — I & II*. Springer Verlag, Berlin Hiedelberg, 1988.Google Scholar - 6.R. Boppana, J. Hastad and S. Zachos. Does co-NP have short interactive proofs?
*Information Processing Letters*, 25: 127–132, 1987.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.W. Burnside.
*Theory of Groups of Finite Order*, Dover Publications, INC, 1955.Google Scholar - 8.G. Cooperman and L. Finkelstein. Random algorithms for permutation groups. CWI Quarterly, 5 (2): 93–105, 1992.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 9.S. Fenner, L. Fortnow and S. Kurtz. Gap-definable counting classes.
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, 48: 116–148, 1994.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.M. Fellows and N. Koblitz. Self-witnessing polynomial time complexity and prime factorization. Proc.
*6th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference*, 107–110, 1992.Google Scholar - 11.M. Furst, J. E. Hopcroft and E. Luks. Polynomial time algorithms for permutation groups.
*Proc. 21st IEEE Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science*, 36–45, 1980.Google Scholar - 12.M. Hall.
*The Theory of Groups*. Macmillan, New York, 1959.Google Scholar - 13.C. Hoffmann.
*Group-Theoretic Algorithms and Graph Isomorphism*. Lecture Notes in Computer Science #136, Springer Verlag, 1982.Google Scholar - 14.C. Hoffmann. Subcomplete Generalizations of Graph Isomorphism.
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, 25: 332–359, 1982.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.J. Köbler, U. Schöning and J. Torán. Graph isomorphism is low for PP.
*Journal of Computational Complexity*, 2: 301–310, 1992.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.U. Schöning. Graph isomorphism is in the low hierarchy.
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, 37: 312–323, 1988.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar