Separating Complexity Classes Using Autoreducibility
TL;DR: The autoreducibility of complete sets under nonadaptive, bounded query, probabilistic, and nonuniform reductions is looked at and it is shown how settling some of these autore Ducibility questions will also lead to new complexity class separations.
read more
Abstract: A set is autoreducible if it can be reduced to itself by a Turing machine that does not ask its own input to the oracle. We use autoreducibility to separate the polynomial-time hierarchy from exponential space by showing that all Turing complete sets for certain levels of the exponential-time hierarchy are autoreducible but there exists some Turing complete set for doubly exponential space that is not.
Although we already knew how to separate these classes using diagonalization, our proofs separate classes solely by showing they have different structural properties, thus applying Post's program to complexity theory. We feel such techniques may prove unknown separations in the future. In particular, if we could settle the question as to whether all Turing complete sets for doubly exponential time are autoreducible, we would separate either polynomial time from polynomial space, and nondeterministic logarithmic space from nondeterministic polynomial time, or else the polynomial-time hierarchy from exponential time.
We also look at the autoreducibility of complete sets under nonadaptive, bounded query, probabilistic, and nonuniform reductions. We show how settling some of these autoreducibility questions will also lead to new complexity class separations.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
Pseudorandomness and Average-Case Complexity Via Uniform Reductions
Luca Trevisan,Salil Vadhan +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors gave the first construction of pseudorandom generators from a uniform complexity assumption on EXP (namely EXP ≠ BPP), but their result does not provide a continuous trade-off between worst-case hardness and pseudo-randomness.
On the Autoreducibility of Random Sequences
TL;DR: The hat problem is used as a module in the proofs of the positive results on i.o.~truth-table-autoreducible, and it is shown that for any rational-valued computable function~$r$ that goes nonascendingly to zero, any rec-random sequence is i.turing autoreducibility.
50
Autoreducibility, mitoticity, and immunity
TL;DR: These results solve several of the open questions raised by Buhrman and Torenvliet in their 1994 survey paper on the structure of complete sets.
30
Autoreducibility, mitoticity, and immunity
Christian Glaßer,Mitsunori Ogihara,Aduri Pavan,Alan L. Selman,Liyu Zhang +4 more
- 29 Aug 2005
TL;DR: This paper showed that PSPACE-complete sets are weakly Turing-mitotic, and NP-complete languages are m-m-mmitotic with respect to one-way permutations and pseudo-random generators.
A Generalization of Resource-Bounded Measure, with Application to the BPP vs. EXP Problem
TL;DR: It is shown that if strong pseudorandom number generators exist, then betting games are equivalent to martingales for measure on E and EXP and that if an EXP-martingale succeeds on either of these classes, or if betting games have the "finite union property" possessed by Lutz's measure, one obtains the nonrelativizable consequence of $\mbox{BPP}
eq \mbox {EXP}$.
References
Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems
TL;DR: It is proved that no MAX SNP-hard problem has a polynomial time approximation scheme, unless NP = P, and there exists a positive ε such that approximating the maximum clique size in an N-vertex graph to within a factor of Nε is NP-hard.
2.2K
•Book
Classical recursion theory
Piergiorgio Odifreddi
- 01 Jan 1989
TL;DR: Theories of Recursive functions, Hierarchies of recursive functions, and Arithmetical sets: Recursively enumerable sets.
1.1K
On the computational complexity of algorithms
TL;DR: In computer science, the time complexity of an algorithm quantifies the amount of time taken by an algorithm to run as a function of the length of the string.
Natural Proofs
Alexander A. Razborov,Steven Rudich +1 more
- 01 Aug 1997
TL;DR: It is shown that the weaker class ofAC0-natural proofs which is sufficient to prove the parity lower bounds of Furst, Saxe, and Sipser, Yao, and Hastad is inherently incapable of proving the bounds of Razborov and Smolensky.
492
•Book
Structural Complexity II
José L. Balcázar,Josep Díaz,Joaquim Gabarró +2 more
- 21 Dec 2011
TL;DR: This is the second volume of a systematic two-volume presentation of the various areas of research in the field of structural complexity, addressed to graduate students and researchers and assumes knowledge of the topics treated in the first volume but is otherwise nearly self-contained.
385