Almost-catalytic Computation

Abstract

Designing algorithms for space bounded models with restoration requirements on the space used by the algorithm is an important challenge posed about the catalytic computation model introduced by Buhrman et al. (2014). Motivated by the scenarios where we do not need to restore unless is useful, we define ACL(A) to be the class of languages that can be accepted by almost-catalytic Turing machines with respect to A (which we call the catalytic set), that uses at most c n work space and nc catalytic space. We show that if there are almost-catalytic algorithms for a problem with catalytic set as A ⊂eq * and its complement respectively, then the problem can be solved by a ZPP algorithm. Using this, we derive that to design catalytic algorithms, it suffices to design almost-catalytic algorithms where the catalytic set is the set of strings of odd weight (PARITY). Towards this, we consider two complexity measures of the set A which are maximized for PARITY - random projection complexity ( R(A)) and the subcube partition complexity ( P(A)). By making use of error-correcting codes, we show that for all k 1, there is a language Ak ⊂eq * such that DSPACE(nk) ⊂eq ACL(Ak) where for every m 1, R(Ak \0,1\m) m4 and P(Ak \0,1\m)=2m/4. This contrasts the catalytic machine model where it is unclear if it can accept all languages in DSPACE(1+ε n) for any ε > 0. Improving the partition complexity of the catalytic set A further, we show that for all k 1, there is a Ak ⊂eq \0,1\* such that DSPACE(k n) ⊂eq ACL(Ak) where for every m 1, R(Ak \0,1\m) m4 and P(Ak \0,1\m)=2m/4+( m).

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…