Generic-case complexity, decision problems in group theory and random walks

We give a precise definition of ``generic-case complexity'' and show that for a very large class of finitely generated groups the classical decision problems of group theory - the word, conjugacy and membership problems - all have linear-time generic-case complexity. We prove such theorems by using the theory of random walks on regular graphs.Comment: Revised versio

Evaluating Matrix Circuits

The circuit evaluation problem (also known as the compressed word problem) for finitely generated linear groups is studied. The best upper bound for this problem is $\mathsf{coRP}$, which is shown by a reduction to polynomial identity testing. Conversely, the compressed word problem for the linear group $\mathsf{SL}_3(\mathbb{Z})$ is equivalent to polynomial identity testing. In the paper, it is shown that the compressed word problem for every finitely generated nilpotent group is in $\mathsf{DET} \subseteq \mathsf{NC}^2$. Within the larger class of polycyclic groups we find examples where the compressed word problem is at least as hard as polynomial identity testing for skew arithmetic circuits

On the Complexity of the Word Problem for Automaton Semigroups and Automaton Groups

In this paper, we study the word problem for automaton semigroups and automaton groups from a complexity point of view. As an intermediate concept between automaton semigroups and automaton groups, we introduce automaton-inverse semigroups, which are generated by partial, yet invertible automata. We show that there is an automaton-inverse semigroup and, thus, an automaton semigroup with a PSPACE-complete word problem. We also show that there is an automaton group for which the word problem with a single rational constraint is PSPACE-complete. Additionally, we provide simpler constructions for the uniform word problems of these classes. For the uniform word problem for automaton groups (without rational constraints), we show NL-hardness. Finally, we investigate a question asked by Cain about a better upper bound for the length of a word on which two distinct elements of an automaton semigroup must act differently