Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js
pdf icon
Volume 17 (2021) Article 8 pp. 1-28
The Layer Complexity of Arthur-Merlin-like Communication
Received: May 23, 2019
Revised: December 11, 2020
Published: September 27, 2021
Download article from ToC site:
[PDF (301K)] [PS (1586K)] [Source ZIP]
Keywords: communication complexity, complexity classes
ACM Classification: F.1.3
AMS Classification: 68Q15

Abstract: [Plain Text Version]

\newcommand{\AM}{\mathsf{AM}} \newcommand{\SLAM}{\mathsf{SLAM}} \newcommand{\NP}{\mathsf{NP}} \newcommand{\PP}{\mathsf{PP}} \newcommand{\MA}{\mathsf{MA}} \newcommand{\UAM}{\mathsf{UAM}} \newcommand{\SBP}{\mathsf{SBP}}

In communication complexity the Arthur-Merlin (\AM) model is the most natural one that allows both randomness and nondeterminism. Presently we do not have any super-logarithmic lower bound for the \AM-complexity of an explicit function. Obtaining such a bound is a fundamental challenge to our understanding of communication phenomena.

In this article we explore the gap between the known techniques and the complexity class \AM. In the first part we define a new natural class, Small-advantage Layered Arthur-Merlin (\SLAM), that has the following properties:

  • \SLAM is (strictly) included in \AM and includes all previously known subclasses of \AM with non-trivial lower bounds: \NP, \MA, \SBP, \UAM \subseteq \SLAM \subset \AM Note that \NP\subset\MA\subset\SBP, while \SBP and \UAM are known to be incomparable.
  • \SLAM is qualitatively stronger than the union of those classes: f\in\SLAM\setminus(\SBP\cup\UAM) holds for an (explicit) partial function f.
  • \SLAM is subject to the discrepancy bound: for any f \SLAM(f) \in \Omega\left(\sqrt{\log{\frac1{disc(f)}}}\right)\,. In particular, the inner product function does not have an efficient \SLAM-protocol.
Structurally this can be summarized as \SBP\cup\UAM \subset \SLAM \subseteq \AM\cap\PP\,.

In the second part we ask why proving a lower bound of \omega(\sqrt n) on the \MA-complexity of an explicit function seems to be difficult. We show that such a bound either must explore certain “uniformity” of \MA (which would require a rather unusual argument), or would imply a non-trivial lower bound on the \AM-complexity of the same function.

Both of these results are related to the notion of layer complexity, which is, informally, the number of “layers of nondeterminism” used by a protocol.