Per my comment, I'd like to suggest a definition for "non-iterative hash function", and propose some constructions that fit the definition. I will also suggest an alternate name (though it may not help much with searching for papers on the topic).
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the message space of a hash function, e.g. $\mathcal{M}=\{0,1\}^{*<\ell}$, the set of all binary strings of length less than $\ell$ for some $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $\mathcal{D}$ be the 'digest space' (codomain) of a hash function, e.g. $\{0,1\}^b$ for some constant $b$. I will use subscripts to denote which hash function is associated with a given message space or digest space. Also, let $subseq_y(x)$ be a function that takes binary strings of arbitrary length and outputs a fixed subsequence of the string of length $y$ (e.g. truncation of the string to its first $y$ bits, or outputting only every third bit up to bit $3y$, etc).
A hash function $H(x)$ with digests of length $b$ is "non-iterative" or "uncompressible" if and only if there exists another function $G(x)$ such that:
- $\mathcal{M}_{H(x)}\subseteq\mathcal{M}_{G(x)}$,
- $|\mathcal{M}_{G(x)}| \le |\mathcal{D}_{G(x)}|$,
- $G(x)$ is injective - no two distinct messages in $\mathcal{M}_{G(x)}$ map to the same digest in $\mathcal{D}_{G(x)}$, and
- For any message $m \in \mathcal{M}_{H(x)}$, $H(m) = subseq_b(G(m))$.
Note that a hash function need not be cryptographically secure to be non-iterative by this definition.
The construction in the question meets this definition: In that case, the function $G(x)$ is simply $SPRP(IV||m||padding)$, without truncation.
As described in my comment, another construction is to truncate an injective Random Oracle. Unlike the permutation-based construction, this doesn't have a fixed limit on the message space size (or digest size) defined by the blocklength of the underlying $SPRP$, and yet is just as "non-iterative" or "uncompressible".
As a concrete instantiation of a "non-iterative" or "uncompressible" hash function with no limit on the message or digest lengths, I propose an 'expanding sponge' function. This is just like an ordinary sponge function, but with two differences: 1) instead of using a fixed size permutation it uses a (keyless or fixed key) variable-length blockcipher (like the BEAR blockcipher), and 2) at each step during the absorption phase, instead of xoring the message blocks into the state, it concatenates the next message block with the state; i.e. $S_n$, the state at step $n$ is equal to $\mathcal{E}(S_{n-1}||m_n)$, where $\mathcal{E}(x)$ is encryption with the variable-length blockcipher.
Edit to clarify: For this expanding sponge function, the injective function $G(x)$ that makes this construction "uncompressible" has the same absorbing stage as $H(x)$, but during the squeezing stage $G(x)$ outputs the entire state at each step instead of only part of the state. The output digest of $H(x)$ is thus a subsequence of the output digest of $G(x)$. $G(x)$ is of course trivially insecure, in the sense that one can easily invert the function to find the preimage of any digest.
Note that this construction is in a sense 'iterative', in that it breaks messages up into blocks (with padding at the end if necessary) and absorbs each message block in turn one at a time using repeated iterations of the same variable-length blockcipher. But, there is no possibility of collisions in the internal state (any two distinct messages will generate distinct internal states). Of course, the internal state will balloon to the size of the message once it is done absorbing. But that is the price of collisionless internal states. For this reason, I propose "uncompressible" rather than "non-iterative".
