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 linear-size 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 low-degree 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 non-relativizing 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 non-algebrizing 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 MA-protocol 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

We prove the first time-space tradeoffs for counting the number of solutions to an NP problem modulo small integers, and also improve upon known time-space tradeoffs for Sat. Let m> 0 be an integer, and define MODm-Sat to be the problem of determining if a given Boolean formula has exactly km satisfying assignments, for some integer k. We show for all primes p except for possibly one of them, and for all c < 2cos(π/7) ≈ 1.801, there is a d> 0 such that MODp-Sat is not solvable in n c time and n d space by general algorithms. That is, there is at most one prime p that does not satisfy the tradeoff. We prove that the same limitation holds for Sat and MOD6-Sat, as well as MODm-Sat for any composite m that is not a prime power. Our main tool is a general method for rapidly simulating deterministic computations with restricted space, by counting the number of solutions to NP predicates modulo integers. The simulation converts an ordinary algorithm into a “canonical ” one that consumes roughly the same amount of time and space, yet canonical algorithms have nice properties suitable for counting.

We observe that many important computational problems in NC 1 share a simple self-reducibility property. We then show that, for any problem A having this self-reducibility property, A has polynomial size TC 0 circuits if and only if it has TC 0 circuits of size n 1+ɛ for every ɛ>0 (counting the number of wires in a circuit as the size of the circuit). As an example of what this observation yields, consider the Boolean Formula Evaluation problem (BFE), which is complete for NC 1 and has the self-reducibility property. It follows from a lower bound of Impagliazzo, Paturi, and Saks, that BFE requires depth d TC 0 circuits of size n 1+ɛd. If one were able to improve this lower bound to show that there is some constant ɛ>0 such that every TC 0 circuit family recognizing BFE has size n 1+ɛ, then it would follow that TC 0 ̸ = NC 1. We show that proving lower bounds of the form n 1+ɛ is not ruled out by the Natural Proof framework of Razborov and Rudich and hence there is currently no known barrier for separating classes such as ACC 0,TC 0 and NC 1 via existing “natural ” approaches to proving circuit lower bounds. We also show that problems with small uniform constant-depth circuits have algorithms that simultaneously have small space and time bounds. We then make use of known time-space tradeoff lower bounds to show that SAT requires uniform depth d TC 0 and AC 0 [6] circuits of size n 1+c for some constant c depending on d. 1

A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial time lower bounds for solving natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, MOD6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. These lower bound proofs all follow a certain diagonalization-based proof-by-contradiction strategy. A pressing open problem has been to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be. We propose an automated theorem-proving methodology for studying these lower bound problems. In particular, we prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. We describe an implementation of a small-scale theorem prover and discover surprising experimental results. In some settings, our program provides strong evidence that the best known lower bound proofs are already optimal for the current framework, contradicting the consensus intuition; in others, the program guides us to improved lower bounds where none had been known for years.

Abstract. We give a reduction from arbitrary languages in alternating time t(n) to quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) describable in O(t(n)) bits. The reduction works for a reasonable succinct encoding of Boolean formulas and for several reasonable machine models, including multitape Turing machines and logarithmic-cost RAMs. By a simple diagonalization, it follows that our succinct QBF problem requires superlinear time on those models. To our knowledge this is the first known instance of a non-linear time lower bound (with no space restriction) for solving a natural linear space problem on a variety of computational models.

We show that for all reals c and d such that c 2 d < 4 there exists a positive real e such that tautologies of length n cannot be decided by both a nondeterministic algorithm that runs in time n c, and a nondeterministic algorithm that runs in time n d and space n e. In particular, for every d < 3√ 4 there exists a positive e such that tautologies cannot be decided by a nondeterministic algorithm that runs in time n d and space n e.

Problem NP versus P: A proof that NP is not equaled to P

review articles doi:10.1145/1562164.1562186 It’s one of the fundamental mathematical problems of our time, and its importance grows with the rise of powerful computers.