1,897 research outputs found

    Better Pseudorandom Generators from Milder Pseudorandom Restrictions

    Full text link
    We present an iterative approach to constructing pseudorandom generators, based on the repeated application of mild pseudorandom restrictions. We use this template to construct pseudorandom generators for combinatorial rectangles and read-once CNFs and a hitting set generator for width-3 branching programs, all of which achieve near-optimal seed-length even in the low-error regime: We get seed-length O(log (n/epsilon)) for error epsilon. Previously, only constructions with seed-length O(\log^{3/2} n) or O(\log^2 n) were known for these classes with polynomially small error. The (pseudo)random restrictions we use are milder than those typically used for proving circuit lower bounds in that we only set a constant fraction of the bits at a time. While such restrictions do not simplify the functions drastically, we show that they can be derandomized using small-bias spaces.Comment: To appear in FOCS 201

    Algebraic Methods in Computational Complexity

    Get PDF
    Computational Complexity is concerned with the resources that are required for algorithms to detect properties of combinatorial objects and structures. It has often proven true that the best way to argue about these combinatorial objects is by establishing a connection (perhaps approximate) to a more well-behaved algebraic setting. Indeed, many of the deepest and most powerful results in Computational Complexity rely on algebraic proof techniques. The Razborov-Smolensky polynomial-approximation method for proving constant-depth circuit lower bounds, the PCP characterization of NP, and the Agrawal-Kayal-Saxena polynomial-time primality test are some of the most prominent examples. In some of the most exciting recent progress in Computational Complexity the algebraic theme still plays a central role. There have been significant recent advances in algebraic circuit lower bounds, and the so-called chasm at depth 4 suggests that the restricted models now being considered are not so far from ones that would lead to a general result. There have been similar successes concerning the related problems of polynomial identity testing and circuit reconstruction in the algebraic model (and these are tied to central questions regarding the power of randomness in computation). Also the areas of derandomization and coding theory have experimented important advances. The seminar aimed to capitalize on recent progress and bring together researchers who are using a diverse array of algebraic methods in a variety of settings. Researchers in these areas are relying on ever more sophisticated and specialized mathematics and the goal of the seminar was to play an important role in educating a diverse community about the latest new techniques

    Error Reduction for Weighted PRGs Against Read Once Branching Programs

    Get PDF

    Pseudorandom Generators for Width-3 Branching Programs

    Full text link
    We construct pseudorandom generators of seed length O~(log(n)log(1/ϵ))\tilde{O}(\log(n)\cdot \log(1/\epsilon)) that ϵ\epsilon-fool ordered read-once branching programs (ROBPs) of width 33 and length nn. For unordered ROBPs, we construct pseudorandom generators with seed length O~(log(n)poly(1/ϵ))\tilde{O}(\log(n) \cdot \mathrm{poly}(1/\epsilon)). This is the first improvement for pseudorandom generators fooling width 33 ROBPs since the work of Nisan [Combinatorica, 1992]. Our constructions are based on the `iterated milder restrictions' approach of Gopalan et al. [FOCS, 2012] (which further extends the Ajtai-Wigderson framework [FOCS, 1985]), combined with the INW-generator [STOC, 1994] at the last step (as analyzed by Braverman et al. [SICOMP, 2014]). For the unordered case, we combine iterated milder restrictions with the generator of Chattopadhyay et al. [CCC, 2018]. Two conceptual ideas that play an important role in our analysis are: (1) A relabeling technique allowing us to analyze a relabeled version of the given branching program, which turns out to be much easier. (2) Treating the number of colliding layers in a branching program as a progress measure and showing that it reduces significantly under pseudorandom restrictions. In addition, we achieve nearly optimal seed-length O~(log(n/ϵ))\tilde{O}(\log(n/\epsilon)) for the classes of: (1) read-once polynomials on nn variables, (2) locally-monotone ROBPs of length nn and width 33 (generalizing read-once CNFs and DNFs), and (3) constant-width ROBPs of length nn having a layer of width 22 in every consecutive polylog(n)\mathrm{poly}\log(n) layers.Comment: 51 page

    Hitting Sets Give Two-Sided Derandomization of Small Space

    Get PDF

    Optimal Error Pseudodistributions for Read-Once Branching Programs

    Get PDF
    In a seminal work, Nisan (Combinatorica'92) constructed a pseudorandom generator for length nn and width ww read-once branching programs with seed length O(lognlog(nw)+lognlog(1/ε))O(\log n\cdot \log(nw)+\log n\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)) and error ε\varepsilon. It remains a central question to reduce the seed length to O(log(nw/ε))O(\log (nw/\varepsilon)), which would prove that BPL=L\mathbf{BPL}=\mathbf{L}. However, there has been no improvement on Nisan's construction for the case n=wn=w, which is most relevant to space-bounded derandomization. Recently, in a beautiful work, Braverman, Cohen and Garg (STOC'18) introduced the notion of a pseudorandom pseudo-distribution (PRPD) and gave an explicit construction of a PRPD with seed length O~(lognlog(nw)+log(1/ε))\tilde{O}(\log n\cdot \log(nw)+\log(1/\varepsilon)). A PRPD is a relaxation of a pseudorandom generator, which suffices for derandomizing BPL\mathbf{BPL} and also implies a hitting set. Unfortunately, their construction is quite involved and complicated. Hoza and Zuckerman (FOCS'18) later constructed a much simpler hitting set generator with seed length O(lognlog(nw)+log(1/ε))O(\log n\cdot \log(nw)+\log(1/\varepsilon)), but their techniques are restricted to hitting sets. In this work, we construct a PRPD with seed length O(lognlog(nw)loglog(nw)+log(1/ε)).O(\log n\cdot \log (nw)\cdot \log\log(nw)+\log(1/\varepsilon)). This improves upon the construction in [BCG18] by a O(loglog(1/ε))O(\log\log(1/\varepsilon)) factor, and is optimal in the small error regime. In addition, we believe our construction and analysis to be simpler than the work of Braverman, Cohen and Garg

    Algebra in Computational Complexity

    Get PDF
    At its core, much of Computational Complexity is concerned with combinatorial objects and structures. But it has often proven true that the best way to prove things about these combinatorial objects is by establishing a connection to a more well-behaved algebraic setting. Indeed, many of the deepest and most powerful results in Computational Complexity rely on algebraic proof techniques. The Razborov-Smolensky polynomial-approximation method for proving constant-depth circuit lower bounds, the PCP characterization of NP, and the Agrawal-Kayal-Saxena polynomial-time primality test are some of the most prominent examples. The algebraic theme continues in some of the most exciting recent progress in computational complexity. There have been significant recent advances in algebraic circuit lower bounds, and the so-called "chasm at depth 4" suggests that the restricted models now being considered are not so far from ones that would lead to a general result. There have been similar successes concerning the related problems of polynomial identity testing and circuit reconstruction in the algebraic model, and these are tied to central questions regarding the power of randomness in computation. Representation theory has emerged as an important tool in three separate lines of work: the "Geometric Complexity Theory" approach to P vs. NP and circuit lower bounds, the effort to resolve the complexity of matrix multiplication, and a framework for constructing locally testable codes. Coding theory has seen several algebraic innovations in recent years, including multiplicity codes, and new lower bounds. This seminar brought together researchers who are using a diverse array of algebraic methods in a variety of settings. It plays an important role in educating a diverse community about the latest new techniques, spurring further progress

    Improved Explicit Hitting-Sets for ROABPs

    Get PDF
    We give improved explicit constructions of hitting-sets for read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs (ROABPs) and related models. For ROABPs in an unknown variable order, our hitting-set has size polynomial in (nr)^{(log n)/(max{1, log log n-log log r})}d over a field whose characteristic is zero or large enough, where n is the number of variables, d is the individual degree, and r is the width of the ROABP. A similar improved construction works over fields of arbitrary characteristic with a weaker size bound. Based on a result of Bisht and Saxena (2020), we also give an improved explicit construction of hitting-sets for sum of several ROABPs. In particular, when the characteristic of the field is zero or large enough, we give polynomial-size explicit hitting-sets for sum of constantly many log-variate ROABPs of width r = 2^{O(log d/log log d)}. Finally, we give improved explicit hitting-sets for polynomials computable by width-r ROABPs in any variable order, also known as any-order ROABPs. Our hitting-set has polynomial size for width r up to 2^{O(log(nd)/log log(nd))} or 2^{O(log^{1-?} (nd))}, depending on the characteristic of the field. Previously, explicit hitting-sets of polynomial size are unknown for r = ?(1)

    Pseudodistributions That Beat All Pseudorandom Generators (Extended Abstract)

    Get PDF
    corecore