← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.16096 · v1
The Ultimate Karp-Lipton Collapse
首次提交 2026-11-12 07:10
版本更新 2026-11-12 07:10
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
摘要
Karp and Lipton proved that if , then collapses. A long line of work pushed the collapse to smaller classes. In particular, Chakaravarthy and Roy obtained two such collapses, to (apparently) incomparable classes and . We united them earlier by a collapse to the input-oblivious version of , which is contained in both; and, jointly with Williams, to a slightly smaller class. Two other deepest known collapses are to (following from Köbler and Watanabe) and to (proved in this paper). We unite the three collapses by a collapse to a class contained in all of them. We use a three-stage computational model OGTD (oblivious generator-tester-decoder): a polynomial-time generator with an oracle computes an advice string from , a tester certifies it, and a polynomial-time decoder uses it (it is the only one that sees the actual input). Let be the class of OGTD languages defined by a restricted version of as the generator's oracle, by a co- tester, and a decoder. We show that it is contained in the three collapse classes above and prove that collapses to under . The collapse also holds for an unambiguous version of . All these input-oblivious collapse classes lie in , and so do even the non-input-oblivious versions , and : we prove that . This strengthens the containment of Chakaravarthy and Roy and our earlier containment . The proof unites the Goldreich-Wigderson-type procedure of Chakaravarthy and Roy with our earlier approximate-counting technique. Its input-oblivious counterpart concerns , the first collapse class of Chakaravarthy and Roy: every language in has polynomial-size circuits constructible in .
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-12 07:10 · 最新观测版本
The Ultimate Karp-Lipton Collapse
Karp and Lipton proved that if , then collapses. A long line of work pushed the collapse to smaller classes. In particular, Chakaravarthy and Roy obtained two such collapses, to (apparently) incomparable classes and . We united them earlier by a collapse to the input-oblivious version of , which is contained in both; and, jointly with Williams, to a slightly smaller class. Two other deepest known collapses are to (following from Köbler and Watanabe) and to (proved in this paper). We unite the three collapses by a collapse to a class contained in all of them. We use a three-stage computational model OGTD (oblivious generator-tester-decoder): a polynomial-time generator with an oracle computes an advice string from , a tester certifies it, and a polynomial-time decoder uses it (it is the only one that sees the actual input). Let be the class of OGTD languages defined by a restricted version of as the generator's oracle, by a co- tester, and a decoder. We show that it is contained in the three collapse classes above and prove that collapses to under . The collapse also holds for an unambiguous version of . All these input-oblivious collapse classes lie in , and so do even the non-input-oblivious versions , and : we prove that . This strengthens the containment of Chakaravarthy and Roy and our earlier containment . The proof unites the Goldreich-Wigderson-type procedure of Chakaravarthy and Roy with our earlier approximate-counting technique. Its input-oblivious counterpart concerns , the first collapse class of Chakaravarthy and Roy: every language in has polynomial-size circuits constructible in .
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗