Relativized circuit complexity
Journal of Computer and System Sciences
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy
SIAM Journal on Computing
The probabilistic communication complexity of set intersection
SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics
Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
On the distributional complexity of disjointness
Theoretical Computer Science
Journal of Computer and System Sciences - Special issue: 26th annual ACM symposium on the theory of computing & STOC'94, May 23–25, 1994, and second annual Europe an conference on computational learning theory (EuroCOLT'95), March 13–15, 1995
Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity
STOC '99 Proceedings of the thirty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Graph Nonisomorphism Has Subexponential Size Proofs Unless the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy Collapses
SIAM Journal on Computing
Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey
Theoretical Computer Science - Complexity and logic
COCO '98 Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity
On the Power of Quantum Proofs
CCC '04 Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity
Oracles Are Subtle But Not Malicious
CCC '06 Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity
Circuit lower bounds for Merlin-Arthur classes
Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
On Computation and Communication with Small Bias
CCC '07 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity
How to generate and exchange secrets
SFCS '86 Proceedings of the 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Guest Column: correlation bounds for polynomials over {0 1}
ACM SIGACT News
On the complexity of communication complexity
Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
An axiomatic approach to algebrization
Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
ICALP '09 Proceedings of the 36th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming: Part I
On the Power of Small-Depth Computation
Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science
Cracks in the defenses: scouting out approaches on circuit lower bounds
CSR'08 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Computer science: theory and applications
Typically-correct derandomization
ACM SIGACT News
ACM SIGACT News
On the possibility of faster SAT algorithms
SODA '10 Proceedings of the twenty-first annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms
On complete problems, relativizations and logics for complexity classes
Fields of logic and computation
Hi-index | 0.00 |
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 not in 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(sqrt(n) log n) communication (essentially matching a lower bound of Klauck).