๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
The Structure of In-Place Space-Bounded Computation
October 13, 2025 ยท The Ethereal ยท ๐ Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
James Cook, Surendra Ghentiyala, Ian Mertz, Edward Pyne, Nathan S. Sheffield
arXiv ID
2510.12005
Category
cs.CC: Computational Complexity
Cross-listed
cs.DS
Citations
1
Venue
Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex.
Last Checked
6 months ago
Abstract
In the standard model of computing multi-output functions in logspace ($\mathsf{FL}$), we are given a read-only tape holding $x$ and a logarithmic length worktape, and must print $f(x)$ to a dedicated write-only tape. However, there has been extensive work (both in theory and in practice) on algorithms that transform $x$ into $f(x)$ in-place on a single read-write tape with limited (in our case $O(\log n)$) additional workspace. We say $f\in \mathsf{inplaceFL}$ if $f$ can be computed in this model. We initiate the study of in-place computation from a structural complexity perspective, proving upper and lower bounds on the power of $\mathsf{inplaceFL}$. We show the following: i) Unconditionally, $\mathsf{FL}\not\subseteq \mathsf{inplaceFL}$. ii) The problems of integer multiplication and evaluating $\mathsf{NC}^0_4$ circuits lie outside $\mathsf{inplaceFL}$ under cryptographic assumptions. However, evaluating $\mathsf{NC}^0_2$ circuits can be done in $\mathsf{inplaceFL}$. iii) We have $\mathsf{FL} \subseteq \mathsf{inplaceFL}^{\mathsf{STP}}.$ Consequently, proving $\mathsf{inplaceFL} \not\subseteq \mathsf{FL}$ would imply $\mathsf{SAT} \not\in \mathsf{L}$. We also consider the analogous catalytic class ($\mathsf{inplaceFCL}$), where the in-place algorithm has a large additional worktape tape that it must reset at the end of the computation. We give $\mathsf{inplaceFCL}$ algorithms for matrix multiplication and inversion over polynomial-sized finite fields. We furthermore use our results and techniques to show two novel barriers to proving $\mathsf{CL} \subseteq \mathsf{P}$. First, we show that any proof of $\mathsf{CL}\subseteq \mathsf{P}$ must be non-relativizing, by giving an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{CL}^O=\mathsf{EXP}^O$. Second, we identify a search problem in $\mathsf{searchCL}$ but not known to be in $\mathsf{P}$.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Computational Complexity
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
An Exponential Separation Between Randomized and Deterministic Complexity in the LOCAL Model
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
The Parallelism Tradeoff: Limitations of Log-Precision Transformers
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
The Hardness of Approximation of Euclidean k-means
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Slightly Superexponential Parameterized Problems
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal