Results 1  10
of
31
Strengths and Weaknesses of quantum computing
 SIAM JOURNAL OF COMPUTATION
, 1997
"... Recently a great deal of attention has been focused on quantum computation following a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 320 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Recently a great deal of attention has been focused on quantum computation following a
The NPcompleteness column: an ongoing guide
 Journal of Algorithms
, 1985
"... This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & Co ..."
Abstract

Cited by 188 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘[G&J]’’; previous columns will be referred to by their dates). A background equivalent to that provided by [G&J] is assumed, and, when appropriate, crossreferences will be given to that book and the list of problems (NPcomplete and harder) presented there. Readers who have results they would like mentioned (NPhardness, PSPACEhardness, polynomialtimesolvability, etc.) or open problems they would like publicized, should
Limitations of Quantum Advice and OneWay Communication
 Theory of Computing
, 2004
"... Although a quantum state requires exponentially many classical bits to describe, the laws of quantum mechanics impose severe restrictions on how that state can be accessed. This paper shows in three settings that quantum messages have only limited advantages over classical ones. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 50 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Although a quantum state requires exponentially many classical bits to describe, the laws of quantum mechanics impose severe restrictions on how that state can be accessed. This paper shows in three settings that quantum messages have only limited advantages over classical ones.
Logical Depth and Physical Complexity
 THE UNIVERSAL TURING MACHINE: A HALFCENTURY SURVEY
, 1988
"... Some mathematical and natural objects (a random sequence, a sequence of zeros, a perfect crystal, a gas) are intuitively trivial, while others (e.g. the human body, the digits of #) contain internal evidence of a nontrivial causal history. We formalize this ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Some mathematical and natural objects (a random sequence, a sequence of zeros, a perfect crystal, a gas) are intuitively trivial, while others (e.g. the human body, the digits of #) contain internal evidence of a nontrivial causal history. We formalize this
An oracle builder’s toolkit
, 2002
"... We show how to use various notions of genericity as tools in oracle creation. In particular, 1. we give an abstract definition of genericity that encompasses a large collection of different generic notions; 2. we consider a new complexity class AWPP, which contains BQP (quantum polynomial time), and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show how to use various notions of genericity as tools in oracle creation. In particular, 1. we give an abstract definition of genericity that encompasses a large collection of different generic notions; 2. we consider a new complexity class AWPP, which contains BQP (quantum polynomial time), and infer several strong collapses relative to SPgenerics; 3. we show that under additional assumptions these collapses also occur relative to Cohen generics; 4. we show that relative to SPgenerics, ULIN ∩ coULIN ̸ ⊆ DTIME(n k) for any k, where ULIN is unambiguous linear time, despite the fact that UP ∪ (NP ∩ coNP) ⊆ P relative to these generics; 5. we show that there is an oracle relative to which NP/1∩coNP/1 ̸ ⊆ (NP∩coNP)/poly; and 6. we use a specialized notion of genericity to create an oracle relative to which NP BPP ̸ ⊇ MA.
Algebrization: A new barrier in complexity theory
 MIT Theory of Computing Colloquium
, 2007
"... Any proof of P � = NP will have to overcome two barriers: relativization and natural proofs. Yet over the last decade, we have seen circuit lower bounds (for example, that PP does not have linearsize circuits) that overcome both barriers simultaneously. So the question arises of whether there is a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Any proof of P � = NP will have to overcome two barriers: relativization and natural proofs. Yet over the last decade, we have seen circuit lower bounds (for example, that PP does not have linearsize circuits) that overcome both barriers simultaneously. So the question arises of whether there is a third barrier to progress on the central questions in complexity theory. In this paper we present such a barrier, which we call algebraic relativization or algebrization. The idea is that, when we relativize some complexity class inclusion, we should give the simulating machine access not only to an oracle A, but also to a lowdegree extension of A over a finite field or ring. We systematically go through basic results and open problems in complexity theory to delineate the power of the new algebrization barrier. First, we show that all known nonrelativizing results based on arithmetization—both inclusions such as IP = PSPACE and MIP = NEXP, and separations such as MAEXP � ⊂ P/poly —do indeed algebrize. Second, we show that almost all of the major open problems—including P versus NP, P versus RP, and NEXP versus P/poly—will require nonalgebrizing techniques. In some cases algebrization seems to explain exactly why progress stopped where it did: for example, why we have superlinear circuit lower bounds for PromiseMA but not for NP. Our second set of results follows from lower bounds in a new model of algebraic query complexity, which we introduce in this paper and which is interesting in its own right. Some of our lower bounds use direct combinatorial and algebraic arguments, while others stem from a surprising connection between our model and communication complexity. Using this connection, we are also able to give an MAprotocol for the Inner Product function with O ( √ n log n) communication (essentially matching a lower bound of Klauck), as well as a communication complexity conjecture whose truth would imply NL � = NP. 1
Genericity and Measure for Exponential Time
, 1994
"... . Recently Lutz [14,15] introduced a polynomial time bounded version of Lebesgue measure. He and others (see e.g. [11,13,14,15,16,17,18,20]) used this concept to investigate the quantitative structure of Exponential Time (E=DTIME (2 lin )). Previously, AmbosSpies, Fleischhack and Huwig [2,3] introd ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. Recently Lutz [14,15] introduced a polynomial time bounded version of Lebesgue measure. He and others (see e.g. [11,13,14,15,16,17,18,20]) used this concept to investigate the quantitative structure of Exponential Time (E=DTIME (2 lin )). Previously, AmbosSpies, Fleischhack and Huwig [2,3] introduced polynomial time bounded genericity concepts and used them for the investigation of structural properties of NP (under appropriate assumptions) and E. Here we relate these concepts to each other. We show that, for any c³1, the class of n c generic sets has pmeasure 1. This allows us to simplify and extend certain pmeasure 1results. To illustrate the power of generic sets we take the Small Span Theorem of Juedes and Lutz [11] as an example and prove a generalization for bounded query reductions. 1. Introduction The classical Lebesgue measure was effectivized by MartinLöf [19], Schnorr [21], and others. Recently Lutz [14,15] further persued this approach to define a feasible, i.e., pol...
The random oracle hypothesis is false
, 1990
"... The Random Oracle Hypothesis, attributed to Bennett and Gill, essentially states that the relationships between complexity classes which holdforalmost all relativized worlds must also hold in the unrelativized case. Although this paper is not the rst to provideacounterexample to the Random Oracle Hy ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Random Oracle Hypothesis, attributed to Bennett and Gill, essentially states that the relationships between complexity classes which holdforalmost all relativized worlds must also hold in the unrelativized case. Although this paper is not the rst to provideacounterexample to the Random Oracle Hypothesis, it does provide a most compelling counterexample by showing that for almost all oracles A, IP A 6=PSPACE A. If the Random Oracle Hypothesis were true, it would contradict Shamir's result that IP = PSPACE. In fact, it is shown that for almost all oracles A, coNP A 6 IP A. These results extend to the multiprover proof systems of BenOr, Goldwasser, Kilian and Wigderson. In addition, this paper shows that the Random Oracle Hypothesis is sensitive to small changes in the de nition. A class IPP, similar to IP, is de ned. Surprisingly, the IPP = PSPACE result holds for all oracle worlds. Warning: Essentially this paper has been published in Information and Computation and is hence subject to copyright restrictions. It is for personal use only. 1
Small Spans in Scaled Dimension
 SIAM Journal on Computing
, 2004
"... Juedes and Lutz (1995) proved a small span theorem for polynomialtime manyone reductions in exponential time. This result says that for language A decidable in exponential time, either the class of languages reducible to A (the lower span) or the class of problems to which A can be reduced (the up ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Juedes and Lutz (1995) proved a small span theorem for polynomialtime manyone reductions in exponential time. This result says that for language A decidable in exponential time, either the class of languages reducible to A (the lower span) or the class of problems to which A can be reduced (the upper span) is small in the sense of resourcebounded measure and, in particular, that the degree of A is small. Small span theorems have been proven for increasingly stronger polynomialtime reductions, and a small span theorem for polynomialtime Turing reductions would imply BPP � = EXP. In contrast to the progress in resourcebounded measure, AmbosSpies, Merkle, Reimann, and Stephan (2001) showed that there is no small span theorem for the resourcebounded dimension of Lutz (2003), even for polynomialtime manyone reductions. Resourcebounded scaled dimension, recently introduced by Hitchcock, Lutz, and Mayordomo (2004), provides rescalings of resourcebounded dimension. We use scaled dimension to further understand the contrast between measure and dimension regarding polynomialtime spans and degrees. We strengthen prior results by showing that the small span theorem holds for polynomialtime manyone reductions in the −3 rdorder scaled dimension, but fails to hold in the −2 ndorder scaled dimension. Our results also hold in exponential space. As an application, we show that determining the −2 nd or −1 storder scaled dimension in ESPACE of the manyone complete languages for E would yield a proof of P = BPP or P � = PSPACE. On the other hand, it is shown unconditionally that the complete languages for E have −3 rdorder scaled dimension 0 in ESPACE and −2 nd and −1 storder scaled dimension