Upper and Lower Bounds for the Linear Ordering Principle

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2503.19188
• Title: Upper and Lower Bounds for the Linear Ordering Principle
• Authors: Edward A. Hirsch (Ariel University), Ilya Volkovich (Boston College)
• Classification: cs.CC (Computational Complexity)
• Publication Date: October 4, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19188

Abstract

This paper investigates the newly defined complexity class LP², introduced by Korten and Pitassi (FOCS, 2024), which is the polynomial-time Turing closure of the Linear Ordering Principle. The authors place LP² between P^prMA and P^prSBP, where SBP is the only known class between MA and AM. The paper also establishes the inclusion P^prOP² ⊆ OP². These results answer several important open questions, including those posed by Chakaravarthy and Roy regarding P^prMA ⊆ SP², and by Korten and Pitassi concerning Karp-Lipton style collapse for LP².

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problems

The core problems addressed in this paper are:

1. Determining the precise location of LP² in the complexity hierarchy
2. Establishing upper and lower bounds for LP²
3. Resolving open questions regarding Karp-Lipton style collapse
4. Comparing the strength of different collapse results

Significance

This research is important for several reasons:

1. Theoretical Foundation: The Karp-Lipton theorem connects non-uniform and uniform complexity, serving as a crucial tool for transferring lower bounds on fixed polynomial-size Boolean circuits to smaller classes in the polynomial hierarchy
2. Fundamental Understanding: These results are essential for understanding the basic structure of computational complexity
3. Open Problems: The work resolves multiple important open questions in the field

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Previous results left gaps in determining the precise location of LP²
2. Comparisons between different Karp-Lipton style collapse results were lacking
3. Certain inclusion relationships (such as P^prMA ⊆ SP²) remained unresolved

Core Contributions

1. Established New Bounds for LP²: Proved P^prMA ⊆ LP² ⊆ P^prSBP, providing more precise positioning of LP²
2. Resolved Important Open Questions:
   • Answered the question by Chakaravarthy and Roy regarding P^prMA ⊆ SP²
   • Answered the question by Korten and Pitassi concerning Karp-Lipton style collapse for LP²
3. Proved the Strongest Karp-Lipton Collapse: Demonstrated that collapse to P^prOMA is stronger than all previously known collapses
4. Technical Innovation: Introduced new methods for approximate counting and finding linear order minima using prSBP oracles

Methodology Details

Task Definitions

Linear Ordering Principle (LOP)

Input: An ordering relation <_E given by a Boolean circuit E with 2n inputs Output: Either the minimal element of <_E (i.e., an x such that x <_E y for all y ∈ {0,1}^n{x}), or a counterexample (if <_E is not a strict linear order)

Related Complexity Classes

• LP²: The class of languages reducible to LOP via P^NP-Turing reductions
• SBP: Small Bounded error Polynomial time class, located between MA and AM
• prSBP: The promise problem version of SBP

Core Technical Methods

1. Upper Bound Proof: LP² ⊆ P^prSBP

Key Idea: Develop an iterative process that, given an arbitrary element from a linearly ordered set, rapidly converges to the set's minimum element.

Technical Steps:

1. Approximate Counting: Use a prSBP oracle to deterministically approximate the number of satisfying assignments of a Boolean circuit

   Lemma 3.4: There exists a deterministic algorithm that, given a Boolean 
   circuit C and ε > 0, outputs an integer t satisfying 
   #_x C ≤ t ≤ 4^(ε/3) · #_x C ≤ (1+ε)#_x C
   

2. Order Rank Estimation: For an element α in a linear order, define its order rank as rank(α) := |{x ∈ U | x < α}|
   • Extended to average order rank of subset S: rank(S) := Σ_{x∈S} rank(x) / |S|
   • Utilize the observation: |{(υ,α) ∈ U × S | υ < α}| = |S| · rank(S)
3. Iterative Minimization Process (Back Algorithm):
   • Given element α, construct set C(x) := E(x,α) ∨ x = α (all elements ≤ α)
   • Determine new element β bitwise: partition current set into S₀ and S₁ for each coordinate i
   • Select the subset with smaller approximate order rank
   • Guarantee rank(β) ≤ rank(α)/√2

2. Lower Bound Proof: P^prMA ⊆ LP²

Core Idea: Derandomize the prMA oracle through pseudorandom generator construction.

Technical Route:

1. Construct pseudorandom generators using LP² oracle (based on Korten's results)
2. Utilize pseudorandom generators to derandomize prMA protocols
3. Reduce the derandomized problem to NP ⊆ LP² queries

Technical Innovations

1. Novel Approximate Counting Method: First demonstration of approximate counting in FP^prSBP, improving previous FP^prAM results
2. Order Rank Approximation Technique: Innovatively reduce order rank estimation to set size estimation
3. Input-Oblivious Symmetric Alternation: New technique for handling aggregation of commitment oracle queries

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Analysis Framework

This paper is primarily a theoretical computational complexity study without traditional experiments. Results are validated through rigorous mathematical proofs.

Proof Strategy

1. Constructive Proofs: Prove inclusion relationships through explicit algorithm construction
2. Reduction Techniques: Use polynomial-time reductions to establish relationships between complexity classes
3. Oracle Separation: Employ oracle techniques to analyze the capabilities of different computational models

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

Theorem 1: P^prMA ⊆ LP²

Proves that LP² contains all languages solvable by commitment MA protocols, providing a new lower bound for LP².

Theorem 3: LP² ⊆ P^prSBP

Establishes a new upper bound for LP² through an iterative minimization algorithm that finds the minimum element of a linear order in polynomial time using a prSBP oracle.

Theorem 5: P^prOP² ⊆ OP²

Proves that the commitment input-oblivious symmetric alternation class is contained in the non-commitment version, a technically sophisticated result.

Corollaries and Applications

Corollary 2: Karp-Lipton Style Collapse

If NP ⊆ P/poly, then PH = LP² = P^prMA, resolving the open question of Korten and Pitassi.

Corollary 4: Circuit Lower Bounds

E^prSBP contains languages with circuit complexity 2^n/n, providing the first such lower bound for this class.

Complexity Hierarchy

Establishes a complete inclusion chain:

P^prMA ⊆ LP² ⊆ P^prSBP ⊆ P^prAM ⊆ SP² ⊆ ZPP^NP ⊆ Σ²P

Related Work

Research on Symmetric Alternation Classes

1. SP² Class: Introduced by Canetti (1996) and Russell-Sundaram (1998)
2. Input-Oblivious Versions: OP² defined by Chakaravarthy and Roy (2006)
3. Recent Progress: LP² defined by Korten and Pitassi (2024)

Karp-Lipton Style Theorems

1. Original Results: Seminal work by Karp and Lipton (1980)
2. Improved Results: Various collapses by Cai (2007) and Chakaravarthy-Roy (2011)
3. This Paper's Contribution: Unifies and compares the strength of different collapse results

Approximate Counting Research

1. Classical Results: Stockmeyer (1985), Jerrum-Valiant-Vazirani (1986)
2. Arthur-Merlin Protocols: Goldwasser-Sipser (1986)
3. SBP Class: Böhler-Glaßer-Meister (2006)

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Precise Positioning of LP²: Determined the exact location of LP² in the complexity hierarchy
2. Resolution of Open Questions: Answered multiple important open questions in the field
3. Unified Collapse Results: Proved that P^prOMA collapse is the strongest known collapse

Limitations

1. Adaptive Queries: The inclusion LP² ⊆ P^prSBP requires sequential adaptive queries; it is unclear whether this can be parallelized
2. Properties of Input-Oblivious Classes: Certain input-oblivious classes lack good closure properties
3. Concrete Lower Bounds: While inclusion relationships are proved, some separation results remain open

Future Directions

1. Parallel Queries: Investigate whether LP² ⊆ P^prSBP∥ (parallel version) holds
2. Stronger Collapses: Seek potentially stronger Karp-Lipton style collapses
3. Circuit Lower Bounds: Establish fixed polynomial circuit lower bounds for classes like P^prOMA
4. Separation Results: Prove the strictness of certain inclusion relationships

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Depth: Resolves important open problems in computational complexity theory
2. Technical Innovation: Introduces new techniques for approximate counting and order rank estimation
3. Systematicity: Unifies results from different research lines, providing a clear comprehensive picture
4. Rigor: All results are supported by complete mathematical proofs

Weaknesses

1. Limited Practical Applicability: Results are primarily theoretical with limited direct applications
2. Technical Complexity: Some proof techniques are complex and may be difficult to generalize
3. Unresolved Questions: Some related problems remain open

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides important theoretical foundations for computational complexity theory
2. Methodology: Proposed techniques may have applications to other complexity problems
3. Completeness: Fills important gaps in the complexity hierarchy

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Computer Science Research: Provides important tools for complexity theory researchers
2. Algorithm Design: Approximate counting techniques may have applications in algorithm design
3. Cryptography: Karp-Lipton style results have implications for cryptographic assumptions

References

The paper cites important literature in the field, including:

• Karp & Lipton (1980): Original Karp-Lipton theorem
• Korten & Pitassi (2024): Definition of LP² class
• Chakaravarthy & Roy (2006, 2011): Various collapse results
• Böhler et al. (2006): Definition of SBP class
• Goldwasser & Sipser (1986): Classical results on Arthur-Merlin protocols

Note: This paper represents high-level research in computational complexity theory. Its main contributions lie in resolving multiple important open questions in the field and establishing precise relationships between different complexity classes. While the results are primarily theoretical, they provide important insights into understanding the fundamental limits of computation.