skip to main content
research-article

Solvable Group Isomorphism Is (Almost) in NP ∩ coNP

Published:01 March 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Group Isomorphism problem consists in deciding whether two input groups G1 and G2 given by their multiplication tables are isomorphic. We first give a 2-round Arthur-Merlin protocol for the Group Nonisomorphism problem such that on input groups (G1, G2) of size n, Arthur uses O(log6 n) random bits and Merlin uses O(log2 n) nondeterministic bits. We derandomize this protocol for the case of solvable groups showing the following two results:

(a) We give a uniform NP machine for solvable Group Nonisomorphism, that works correctly on all but 2logO(1)(n) inputs of any length n. Furthermore, this NP machine is always correct when the input groups are nonisomorphic. The NP machine is obtained by an unconditional derandomization of the aforesaid AM protocol.

(b) Under the assumption that EXP \not\subseteq i.o--PSPACE we get a complete derandomization of the aforesaid AM protocol. Thus, EXP \not\subseteq i.o--PSPACE implies that Group Isomorphism for solvable groups is in NP ∩ coNP.

References

  1. Agrawal, M., Kayal, N., and Saxena, N. 2004. PRIMES is in P. Ann. Math. 160, 2, 781--793.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Arvind, V. and Köbler, J. 1997. On resource bounded measure and pseudorandomness. In Proceedings of the 17th FSTT Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1346. Springer, 235--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Arvind, V. and Torán, J. 2004. Solvable group isomorphism is (almost) in NP ∩ coNP. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity. 91--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Balcázar, J. L. 1990. Self-Reducibility. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 41, 3, 367--388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Balcázar, J. L., Díaz, J., and Gabarró, J. 1989. Structural Complexity I. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Babai, L. 1985. Trading group theory for randomness. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 421--429. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Babai, L., Fortnow, L., Nisan, N., and Wigderson, A. 1993. BPP has subexponential simulations unless EXPTIME has publishable proofs. Comput. Complex. 3, 307--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Babai, L., Goodman, A. J., Kantor, W., Luks, E., and Pálfy, P. P. 1997. Short presentation for finite groups. J. Algebra 194, 79--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Barrington, D. M., Kadau, P., Lange, K. J., and McKenzie, P. 2001. On the complexity of some problems on groups input as multiplication tables. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 2, 186--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Erdös, P. and Rényi, A. 1965. Probabilistic methods in group theory. J. Anal. Math. 14, 127--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Garzon, M. and Zalcstein, Y. 1991. On isomorphism testing of a class of 2-nilpotent groups. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 42, 2, 237--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Goldreich, O. and Wigderson, A. 2002. Derandomizing that is rarely wrong from short advice that is typically good. In Proceedings of the 6th RANDOM Workshop. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2483. Springer, 209--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hall, M. 1959. The Theory of Groups. Macmillan, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Klivans, A. and van Melkebeek, D. 2002. Graph isomorphism has subexponential size provers unless the polynomial time hierarchy collapses. SIAM J. Comput. 31, 5, 1501--1526. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Köbler, J., Schöning, U., and Torán, J. 1992. Graph Isomorphism: Its Structural Complexity. Birkhäuser, Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lipton, R. J., Snyder, L., and Zalcstein, Y. 1976. The complexity of word and isomorphism problems for finite groups. Tech. rep., Johns Hopkins University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu, C.-J. 2001. Derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games under uniform assumptions. J. Comput. Complex. 10, 247--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Miller, G. L. 1978. On the nlog n isomorphism technique. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. 51--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Miltersen, P. B. and Vinodchandran, N. 1999. Derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games using hitting sets. In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Nisan, N. and Wigderson, A. 1994. Hardness vs randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49, 149--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Papadimitriou, C. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sipser, M. 1983. A complexity theoretic approach to randomness. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computer Science. 330--335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Trevisan, L. 2001. Extractors and pseudorandom generators. J. ACM 48, 4, 860--879. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Solvable Group Isomorphism Is (Almost) in NP ∩ coNP

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!