Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds

A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial time lower bounds for solving natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, Mod6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. The proofs of these lower bounds follow a certain proof-by-contradiction strategy that we call alternation-trading. An important open problem is to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be. We propose a methodology for studying these proofs that makes them amenable to both formal analysis and automated theorem proving. We prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. Implementing a small-scale theorem prover based on this result, we extract new human-readable time lower bounds for several problems. This framework can also be used to prove concrete limitations on the current techniques.Comment: To appear in STACS 2010, 12 page

Exponential Time Paradigms Through the Polynomial Time Lens

We propose a general approach to modelling algorithmic paradigms for the exact solution of NP-hard problems. Our approach is based on polynomial time reductions to succinct versions of problems solvable in polynomial time. We use this viewpoint to explore and compare the power of paradigms such as branching and dynamic programming, and to shed light on the true complexity of various problems. As one instantiation, we model branching using the notion of witness compression, i.e., reducibility to the circuit satisfiability problem parameterized by the number of variables of the circuit. We show this is equivalent to the previously studied notion of `OPP-algorithms\u27, and provide a technique for proving conditional lower bounds for witness compressions via a constructive variant of AND-composition, which is a notion previously studied in theory of preprocessing. In the context of parameterized complexity we use this to show that problems such as Pathwidth and Treewidth and Independent Set parameterized by pathwidth do not have witness compression, assuming NP subseteq coNP/poly. Since these problems admit fast fixed parameter tractable algorithms via dynamic programming, this shows that dynamic programming can be stronger than branching, under a standard complexity hypothesis. Our approach has applications outside parameterized complexity as well: for example, we show if a polynomial time algorithm outputs a maximum independent set of a given planar graph on n vertices with probability exp(-n^{1-epsilon}) for some epsilon>0, then NP subseteq coNP/poly. This negative result dims the prospects for one very natural approach to sub-exponential time algorithms for problems on planar graphs. As two other illustrations (more exploratory) of our approach, we model algorithms based on inclusion-exclusion or group algebras via the notion of "parity compression", and we model a subclass of dynamic programming algorithms with the notion of "disjunctive dynamic programming". These models give us a way to naturally classify various parameterized problems with FPT algorithms. In the case of the dynamic programming model, we show that Independent Set parameterized by pathwidth is complete for this model

Time-Space Lower Bounds for Simulating Proof Systems with Quantum and Randomized Verifiers

A line of work initiated by Fortnow in 1997 has proven model-independent time-space lower bounds for the $\mathsf{SAT}$ problem and related problems within the polynomial-time hierarchy. For example, for the $\mathsf{SAT}$ problem, the state-of-the-art is that the problem cannot be solved by random-access machines in $n^c$ time and $n^{o(1)}$ space simultaneously for $c < 2\cos(\frac{\pi}{7}) \approx 1.801$. We extend this lower bound approach to the quantum and randomized domains. Combining Grover's algorithm with components from $\mathsf{SAT}$ time-space lower bounds, we show that there are problems verifiable in $O(n)$ time with quantum Merlin-Arthur protocols that cannot be solved in $n^c$ time and $n^{o(1)}$ space simultaneously for $c < \frac{3+\sqrt{3}}{2} \approx 2.366$, a super-quadratic time lower bound. This result and the prior work on $\mathsf{SAT}$ can both be viewed as consequences of a more general formula for time lower bounds against small-space algorithms, whose asymptotics we study in full. We also show lower bounds against randomized algorithms: there are problems verifiable in $O(n)$ time with (classical) Merlin-Arthur protocols that cannot be solved in $n^c$ randomized time and $n^{o(1)}$ space simultaneously for $c < 1.465$, improving a result of Diehl. For quantum Merlin-Arthur protocols, the lower bound in this setting can be improved to $c < 1.5$.Comment: 38 pages, 5 figures. To appear in ITCS 202

A Quantum Time-Space Lower Bound for the Counting Hierarchy

We obtain the first nontrivial time-space lower bound for quantum algorithms solving problems related to satisfiability. Our bound applies to MajSAT and MajMajSAT, which are complete problems for the first and second levels of the counting hierarchy, respectively. We prove that for every real d and every positive real epsilon there exists a real c>1 such that either: MajMajSAT does not have a quantum algorithm with bounded two-sided error that runs in time n^c, or MajSAT does not have a quantum algorithm with bounded two-sided error that runs in time n^d and space n^{1-\epsilon}. In particular, MajMajSAT cannot be solved by a quantum algorithm with bounded two-sided error running in time n^{1+o(1)} and space n^{1-\epsilon} for any epsilon>0. The key technical novelty is a time- and space-efficient simulation of quantum computations with intermediate measurements by probabilistic machines with unbounded error. We also develop a model that is particularly suitable for the study of general quantum computations with simultaneous time and space bounds. However, our arguments hold for any reasonable uniform model of quantum computation.Comment: 25 page

Bounded Relativization

Relativization is one of the most fundamental concepts in complexity theory, which explains the difficulty of resolving major open problems. In this paper, we propose a weaker notion of relativization called bounded relativization. For a complexity class ?, we say that a statement is ?-relativizing if the statement holds relative to every oracle ? ? ?. It is easy to see that every result that relativizes also ?-relativizes for every complexity class ?. On the other hand, we observe that many non-relativizing results, such as IP = PSPACE, are in fact PSPACE-relativizing. First, we use the idea of bounded relativization to obtain new lower bound results, including the following nearly maximum circuit lower bound: for every constant ? > 0, BPE^{MCSP}/2^{?n} ? SIZE[2?/n]. We prove this by PSPACE-relativizing the recent pseudodeterministic pseudorandom generator by Lu, Oliveira, and Santhanam (STOC 2021). Next, we study the limitations of PSPACE-relativizing proof techniques, and show that a seemingly minor improvement over the known results using PSPACE-relativizing techniques would imply a breakthrough separation NP ? L. For example: - Impagliazzo and Wigderson (JCSS 2001) proved that if EXP ? BPP, then BPP admits infinitely-often subexponential-time heuristic derandomization. We show that their result is PSPACE-relativizing, and that improving it to worst-case derandomization using PSPACE-relativizing techniques implies NP ? L. - Oliveira and Santhanam (STOC 2017) recently proved that every dense subset in P admits an infinitely-often subexponential-time pseudodeterministic construction, which we observe is PSPACE-relativizing. Improving this to almost-everywhere (pseudodeterministic) or (infinitely-often) deterministic constructions by PSPACE-relativizing techniques implies NP ? L. - Santhanam (SICOMP 2009) proved that pr-MA does not have fixed polynomial-size circuits. This lower bound can be shown PSPACE-relativizing, and we show that improving it to an almost-everywhere lower bound using PSPACE-relativizing techniques implies NP ? L. In fact, we show that if we can use PSPACE-relativizing techniques to obtain the above-mentioned improvements, then PSPACE ? EXPH. We obtain our barrier results by constructing suitable oracles computable in EXPH relative to which these improvements are impossible