Advertisement

Measure Theoretic Completeness Notions for the Exponential Time Classes

  • Klaus Ambos-Spies
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1893)

Abstract

The resource-bounded measure theory of Lutz leads to variants of the classical hardness and completeness notions. While a set A is hard (under polynomial time many-one reducibility) for a complexity class C if every set in C can be reduced to A, a set A is almost hard if the class of reducible sets has measure 1 in C, and a set A is weakly hard if the class of reducible sets does not have measure 0 in C. If, in addition, A is a member of C then A is almost complete and weakly complete for C, respectively. Weak hardness for the exponential time classes E = DTIME(2lin(n)) and EXP = DTIME(2poly(n)) has been extensively studied in the literature, whereas the nontriviality of the concept of almost completeness has been established only recently.

Here we continue the investigation of these measure theoretic hardness notions for the exponential time classes and we establish the relations among these notions which had been left open. In particular, we show that almost hardness for E and EXP are independent. Moreover, there is a set in E which is almost complete for EXP but not weakly complete for E. These results exhibit a surprising degree of independence of the measure concepts for E and EXP.

Finally, we give structural separations for some of these concepts and we show the nontriviality of almost hardness for the bounded query reducibilities of fixed norm.

Keywords

IEEE Computer Society Complexity Class Exponential Time Structural Separation Measure Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Ambos-Spies and E. Mayordomo. Resource-bounded measure and randomness. In: A. Sorbi (ed.), Complexity, logic, and recursion theory, p. 1–47, Dekker, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Ambos-Spies, E. Mayordomo and X. Zheng. A comparison of weak completeness notions. In: Proceedings of the 11th Ann. IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, p. 171–178, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Ambos-Spies, W. Merkle, J. Reimann, and S.A. Terwijn. Almost complete sets. In: STACS 2000, LNCS 1770, p. 419–430, Springer, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Ambos-Spies, H.-C. Neis and S.A. Terwijn. Genericity and measure for exponential time. Theoretical Computer Science, 168:3–19, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Ambos-Spies, S.A. Terwijn and X. Zheng. Resource bounded randomness and weakly complete problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 172:195–207, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.L. Balcázar, J. Díaz, and J. Gabarró. Structural Complexity, volume I. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Berman. Polynomial reducibilities and complete sets. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Buhrmann and L. Torenvliet. On the structure of complete sets. In: Proceedings of the 9th Ann. Structure in Complexity Conference, p. 118–133, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Homer. Structural properties for complete problems for exponential time. In: Complexity Theory Retrospective II (Hemaspaandra, L.A. et al., eds.), p. 135–153, Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.W. Juedes and J.H. Lutz. The complexity and distribution of hard problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 24:279–295, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.W. Juedes and J.H. Lutz. Weak completeness in E and E2. Theoretical Computer Science, 143:149–158, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.H. Lutz. Almost everywhere high nonuniform complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 44:220–258, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.H. Lutz. Weakly hard problems. SIAM Journal on Computing 24:1170–1189, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.H. Lutz. The quantitative structure of exponential time. In: Complexity Theory Retrospective II (Hemaspaandra, L.A. et al., eds.), p. 225–260, Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Mayordomo. Almost every set in exponential time is P-bi-immune. Theoretical Computer Science, 136:487–506, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Regan, D. Sivakumar and J.-Y. Cai. Pseudorandom generators, measure theory and natural proofs. In: Proceedings of the 36th Ann. IEEE Symposium an Foundations of Computer Science, p. 171–178, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Ambos-Spies
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematisches InstitutUniversität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations