The Landscape of Communication Complexity Classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prove several results which, together with prior work, provide a nearly-complete picture of the relationships among classical communication complexity classes between $${\mathsf{P}}$$ and $${\mathsf{PSPACE}}$$ , short of proving lower bounds against classes for which no explicit lower bounds were already known. Our article also serves as an up-to-date survey on the state of structural communication complexity. Among our new results we show that $${\mathsf{MA} \not\subseteq \mathsf{ZPP}^{\mathsf{NP}[1]}}$$ , that is, Merlin–Arthur proof systems cannot be simulated by zero-sided error randomized protocols with one $${\mathsf{NP}}$$ query. Here the class $$\mathsf{ZPP}^{\mathsf{NP}[1]}$$ has the property that generalizing it in the slightest ways would make it contain $${\mathsf{AM} \cap \mathsf{coAM}}$$ , for which it is notoriously open to prove any explicit lower bounds. We also prove that $${\mathsf{US} \not\subseteq \mathsf{ZPP}^{\mathsf{NP}[1]}}$$ , where $${\mathsf{US}}$$ is the class whose canonically complete problem is the variant of set-disjointness where yes-instances are uniquely intersecting. We also prove that $${\mathsf{US} \not\subseteq \mathsf{coDP}}$$ , where $${\mathsf{DP}}$$ is the class of differences of two $${\mathsf{NP}}$$ sets. Finally, we explore an intriguing open issue: Are rank-1 matrices inherently more powerful than rectangles in communication complexity? We prove a new separation concerning $${\mathsf{PP}}$$ that sheds light on this issue and strengthens some previously known separations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".