The Structure of In-Place Space-Bounded Computation

October 13, 2025 ยท The Ethereal ยท ๐Ÿ› Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex.

๐Ÿ”ฎ THE ETHEREAL: The Ethereal
Pure theory โ€” exists on a plane beyond code

"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 shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Computational Complexity