# Promise problems and access to unambiguous computation

## Abstract

This paper studies the power of three types of access to unambiguous computation: nonadaptive access, fault-tolerant access, and guarded access. (1) Though for NP it is known that nonadaptive access has exponentially terse adaptive simulations, we show that UP has no such relativizable simulations: there are worlds in which (*k*+1)-truth-table access to UP is not subsumed by *k*-Turing access to UP. (2) Though fault-tolerant access (i.e., “1-helping” access) to NP is known to be no more powerful than NP itself, we give both structural and relativized evidence that fault tolerant access to UP suffices to recognize even sets beyond UP. Furthermore, we completely characterize, in terms of locally positive reductions, the sets that fault-tolerantly reduce to UP. (3) In guarded access, Grollmann and Selman's natural notion of access to unambiguous computation, a deterministic polynomial-time Turing machine asks questions to a nondeterministic polynomial-time Turing machine in such a way that the nondeterministic machine never accepts ambiguously. In contrast to guarded access, the standard notion of access to unambiguous computation is that of access to a set that is *uniformly* unambiguous—even for queries that it never will be asked by its questioner, it must be unambiguous. We show that these notions, though the same for nonadaptive reductions, differ for Turing and strong nondeterministic reductions.

## Keywords

Turing Machine Relativize World Turing Reduction Tolerant Access Positive Reduction## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]R. Beigel. Bounded queries to SAT and the boolean hierarchy.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 84(2):199–223, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [2]R. Book, T. Long, and A. Selman. Quantitative relativizations of complexity classes.
*SIAM Journal on Computing*, 13(3):461–487, 1984.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [3]S. Even, A. Selman, and Y. Yacobi. The complexity of promise problems with applications to public-key cryptography.
*Information and Control*, 61(2):159–173, 1984.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [4]S. Even and Y. Yacobi. Cryptocomplexity and NP-completeness. In
*Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming*, pages 195–207. Springer-Verlag*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, 1980.Google Scholar - [5]J. Gill. Computational complexity of probabilistic Turing machines.
*SIAM Journal on Computing*, 6(4):675–695, 1977.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [6]J. Grollmann and A. Selman. Complexity measures for public-key cryptosystems.
*SIAM Journal on Computing*, 17:309–335, 1988.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [7]J. Hartmanis and L. Hemachandra. Complexity classes without machines: On complete languages for UP.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 58:129–142, 1988.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [8]J. Hartmanis and L. Hemachandra. Robust machines accept easy sets.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 74(2):217–226, 1990.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [9]J. Hartmanis and L. Hemachandra. One-way functions and the non-isomorphism of NP-complete sets.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 81(1):155–163, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [10]L. Hemachandra. The strong exponential hierarchy collapses.
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, 39(3):299–322, 1989.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [11]L. Hemachandra and S. Jain. On the limitations of locally robust positive reductions.
*International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science*, 2(3):237–255, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [12]D. Joseph and P. Young. Some remarks on witness functions for non-polynomial and non-complete sets in NP.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 39:225–237, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [13]K. Ko. On some natural complete operators.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 37:1–30, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [14]K. Ko. On helping by robust oracle machines.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 52:15–36, 1987.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [15]J. Köbler, U. Schöning, and J. Tóran. Graph isomorphism is low for PP. Technical Report 91-05, Institut für Informatik, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany, July 1991.Google Scholar
- [16]R. Ladner, N. Lynch, and A. Selman. A comparison of polynomial time reducibilities.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 1(2):103–124, 1975.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [17]T. Long. Strong nondeterministic polynomial-time reducibilities.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 21:1–25, 1982.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [18]M. Ogiwara and L. Hemachandra. A complexity theory for feasible closure properties. In
*Proceedings of the 6th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference*, pages 16–29. IEEE Computer Society Press, June/July 1991.Google Scholar - [19]U. Schöning. Robust algorithms: A different approach to oracles.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 40:57–66, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [20]A. Selman. Polynomial time enumeration reducibility.
*SIAM Journal on Computing*, 7(4):440–457, 1978.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [21]A. Selman. Reductions on NP and P-selective sets.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 19:287–304, 1982.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [22]J. Simon.
*On Some Central Problems in Computational Complexity*. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., Jan. 1975. Available as Cornell Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR75-224.Google Scholar - [23]L. Valiant. The relative complexity of checking and evaluating.
*Information Processing Letters*, 5:20–23, 1976.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [24]K. Wagner. Bounded query classes.
*SIAM Journal on Computing*, 19(5):833–846, 1990.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar