Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 124–137 | Cite as

The orbit problem is in the GapL hierarchy



The Orbit problem is defined as follows: Given a matrix A∈ℚn×n and vectors x,y∈ℚ n , does there exist a non-negative integer i such that A i x=y. This problem was shown to be in deterministic polynomial time by Kannan and Lipton (J. ACM 33(4):808–821, 1986). In this paper we place the problem in the logspace counting hierarchy GapLH. We also show that the problem is hard for C=L with respect to logspace many-one reductions.


Orbit problem Linear algebra Parallel complexity Logspace counting classes Parallel algorithm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allender E, Beals R, Ogihara M (1999) The complexity of matrix rank and feasible systems of linear equations. Comput Complex 8(2):99–126 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Allender E, Ogihara M (1996) Relationships among PL, #L and the determinant. RAIRO Theor Inform Appl 30:1–21 MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvind V, Vijayaraghavan TC (2008) The orbit problem is in the GapL hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the 14th COCOON conference. LNCS, vol 5092. Springer, Berlin, pp 160–169. Also available as ECCC technical report TR08-52 ( Google Scholar
  4. Damm C (1991) DET=L#L. Informatik-Preprint 8, Fachbereich Informatik der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin Google Scholar
  5. von zur Gathen J, Gerhard J (1999) Modern computer algebra. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Hesse W, Allender E, Barrington DAM (2002) Uniform constant-depth threshold circuits for division and iterated multiplication. J Comput Syst Sci 65(4):695–716 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoang TM, Thierauf T (2003) The complexity of the characteristic and the minimal polynomial. Theor Comput Sci 295(1–3):205–222 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoang TM, Thierauf T (2005) The complexity of the inertia and some closure properties of GapL. In: Proceedings of 20th IEEE conference on computational complexity, pp 28–37 Google Scholar
  9. Kannan R, Lipton R (1986) Polynomial-time algorithm for the orbit problem. J ACM 33(4):808–821 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Schrijver A (1998) Theory of linear and integer programming. Wiley, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Toda S (1991) Counting problems computationally equivalent to computing the determinant. Technical report 91-07, Department of Computer Science, University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, Japan Google Scholar
  12. Valiant LG (1992) Why is boolean complexity theory difficult? In: Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society symposium on Boolean function complexity, pp 84–94. New York, NY, USA. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vijayaraghavan TC (2008) Classifying certain algebraic problems using logspace counting classes. PhD Thesis, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India.
  14. Vinay V (1991) Counting auxiliary pushdown automata and semi-unbounded arithmetic circuits. In: CCC’91: Proceedings of 6th structure in complexity theory conference, pp 270–284 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Chennai Mathematical InstituteSiruseriIndia

Personalised recommendations