Randomisation and Derandomisation in Descriptive Complexity Theory

We study probabilistic complexity classes and questions of derandomisation from a logical point of view. For each logic L we introduce a new logic BPL, bounded error probabilistic L, which is defined from L in a similar way as the complexity class BPP, bounded error probabilistic polynomial time, is defined from PTIME. Our main focus lies on questions of derandomisation, and we prove that there is a query which is definable in BPFO, the probabilistic version of first-order logic, but not in Cinf, finite variable infinitary logic with counting. This implies that many of the standard logics of finite model theory, like transitive closure logic and fixed-point logic, both with and without counting, cannot be derandomised. Similarly, we present a query on ordered structures which is definable in BPFO but not in monadic second-order logic, and a query on additive structures which is definable in BPFO but not in FO. The latter of these queries shows that certain uniform variants of AC0 (bounded-depth polynomial sized circuits) cannot be derandomised. These results are in contrast to the general belief that most standard complexity classes can be derandomised. Finally, we note that BPIFP+C, the probabilistic version of fixed-point logic with counting, captures the complexity class BPP, even on unordered structures

Two Sides of the Coin Problem

In the coin problem, one is given n independent flips of a coin that has bias b > 0 towards either Head or Tail. The goal is to decide which side the coin is biased towards, with high confidence. An optimal strategy for solving the coin problem is to apply the majority function on the n samples. This simple strategy works as long as b > c(1/sqrt n) for some constant c. However, computing majority is an impossible task for several natural computational models, such as bounded width read once branching programs and AC^0 circuits. Brody and Verbin proved that a length n, width w read once branching program cannot solve the coin problem for b < O(1/(log n)^w). This result was tightened by Steinberger to O(1/(log n)^(w-2)). The coin problem in the model of AC^0 circuits was first studied by Shaltiel and Viola, and later by Aaronson who proved that a depth d size s Boolean circuit cannot solve the coin problem for b < O(1/(log s)^(d+2)). This work has two contributions: 1. We strengthen Steinberger\u27s result and show that any Santha-Vazirani source with bias b < O(1/(log n)^(w-2)) fools length n, width w read once branching programs. In other words, the strong independence assumption in the coin problem is completely redundant in the model of read once branching programs, assuming the bias remains small. That is, the exact same result holds for a much more general class of sources. 2. We tighten Aaronson\u27s result and show that a depth d, size s Boolean circuit cannot solve the coin problem for b < O(1/(log s)^(d-1)). Moreover, our proof technique is different and we believe that it is simpler and more natural