On the Connection between Interval Size Functions and Path Counting

  • Evangelos Bampas
  • Andreas-Nikolas Göbel
  • Aris Pagourtzis
  • Aris Tentes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5532)


We investigate the complexity of hard counting problems that belong to the class #P but have easy decision version; several well-known problems such as #Perfect Matchings, #DNFSat share this property. We focus on classes of such problems which emerged through two disparate approaches: one taken by Hemaspaandra et al. [1] who defined classes of functions that count the size of intervals of ordered strings, and one followed by Kiayias et al. [2] who defined the class TotP, consisting of functions that count the total number of paths of NP computations. We provide inclusion and separation relations between TotP and interval size counting classes, by means of new classes that we define in this work. Our results imply that many known #P-complete problems with easy decision are contained in the classes defined in [1]—but are unlikely to be complete for these classes under certain types of reductions. We also define a new class of interval size functions which strictly contains FP and is strictly contained in TotP under reasonable complexity-theoretic assumptions. We show that this new class contains some hard counting problems.


Total Order Recursive Call Interval Size Computation Path Boolean Formula 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hemaspaandra, L.A., Homan, C.M., Kosub, S., Wagner, K.W.: The complexity of computing the size of an interval. SIAM J. Comput. 36(5), 1264–1300 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kiayias, A., Pagourtzis, A., Sharma, K., Zachos, S.: The complexity of determining the order of solutions. In: Proceedings of the First Southern Symposium on Computing, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, December 4-5 (1998); Extended and revised version: Acceptor-definable complexity classes. LNCS 2563, pp. 453–463. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of computing the permanent. Theor. Comput. Sci. 8, 189–201 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM J. Comput. 8(3), 410–421 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toda, S.: PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM J. Comput. 20(5), 865–877 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toda, S., Watanabe, O.: Polynomial time 1-Turing reductions from #PH to #P. Theor. Comput. Sci. 100(1), 205–221 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiayias, A., Pagourtzis, A., Zachos, S.: Cook reductions blur structural differences between functional complexity classes. In: Panhellenic Logic Symposium, pp. 132–137 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dyer, M.E., Goldberg, L.A., Greenhill, C.S., Jerrum, M.: The relative complexity of approximate counting problems. Algorithmica 38(3), 471–500 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Àlvarez, C., Jenner, B.: A very hard log space counting class. In: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, pp. 154–168 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saluja, S., Subrahmanyam, K.V., Thakur, M.N.: Descriptive complexity of #P functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 50(3), 493–505 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pagourtzis, A.: On the complexity of hard counting problems with easy decision version. In: Proceedings of 3rd Panhellenic Logic Symposium, Anogia, Crete, July 17-21 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pagourtzis, A., Zachos, S.: The complexity of counting functions with easy decision version. In: Královič, R., Urzyczyn, P. (eds.) MFCS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4162, pp. 741–752. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hempel, H., Wechsung, G.: The operators min and max on the polynomial hierarchy. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 11(2), 315–342 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evangelos Bampas
    • 1
  • Andreas-Nikolas Göbel
    • 1
  • Aris Pagourtzis
    • 1
  • Aris Tentes
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Elec. & Comp. Eng.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.New York UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations