Pseudo-Deterministic Streaming

A pseudo-deterministic algorithm is a (randomized) algorithm which, when run multiple times on the same input, with high probability outputs the same result on all executions. Classic streaming algorithms, such as those for finding heavy hitters, approximate counting, ?_2 approximation, finding a nonzero entry in a vector (for turnstile algorithms) are not pseudo-deterministic. For example, in the instance of finding a nonzero entry in a vector, for any known low-space algorithm A, there exists a stream x so that running A twice on x (using different randomness) would with high probability result in two different entries as the output. In this work, we study whether it is inherent that these algorithms output different values on different executions. That is, we ask whether these problems have low-memory pseudo-deterministic algorithms. For instance, we show that there is no low-memory pseudo-deterministic algorithm for finding a nonzero entry in a vector (given in a turnstile fashion), and also that there is no low-dimensional pseudo-deterministic sketching algorithm for ?_2 norm estimation. We also exhibit problems which do have low memory pseudo-deterministic algorithms but no low memory deterministic algorithm, such as outputting a nonzero row of a matrix, or outputting a basis for the row-span of a matrix. We also investigate multi-pseudo-deterministic algorithms: algorithms which with high probability output one of a few options. We show the first lower bounds for such algorithms. This implies that there are streaming problems such that every low space algorithm for the problem must have inputs where there are many valid outputs, all with a significant probability of being outputted

Element Distinctness, Frequency Moments, and Sliding Windows

We derive new time-space tradeoff lower bounds and algorithms for exactly computing statistics of input data, including frequency moments, element distinctness, and order statistics, that are simple to calculate for sorted data. We develop a randomized algorithm for the element distinctness problem whose time T and space S satisfy T in O (n^{3/2}/S^{1/2}), smaller than previous lower bounds for comparison-based algorithms, showing that element distinctness is strictly easier than sorting for randomized branching programs. This algorithm is based on a new time and space efficient algorithm for finding all collisions of a function f from a finite set to itself that are reachable by iterating f from a given set of starting points. We further show that our element distinctness algorithm can be extended at only a polylogarithmic factor cost to solve the element distinctness problem over sliding windows, where the task is to take an input of length 2n-1 and produce an output for each window of length n, giving n outputs in total. In contrast, we show a time-space tradeoff lower bound of T in Omega(n^2/S) for randomized branching programs to compute the number of distinct elements over sliding windows. The same lower bound holds for computing the low-order bit of F_0 and computing any frequency moment F_k, k neq 1. This shows that those frequency moments and the decision problem F_0 mod 2 are strictly harder than element distinctness. We complement this lower bound with a T in O(n^2/S) comparison-based deterministic RAM algorithm for exactly computing F_k over sliding windows, nearly matching both our lower bound for the sliding-window version and the comparison-based lower bounds for the single-window version. We further exhibit a quantum algorithm for F_0 over sliding windows with T in O(n^{3/2}/S^{1/2}). Finally, we consider the computations of order statistics over sliding windows.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1212.437

Three Puzzles on Mathematics, Computation, and Games

In this lecture I will talk about three mathematical puzzles involving mathematics and computation that have preoccupied me over the years. The first puzzle is to understand the amazing success of the simplex algorithm for linear programming. The second puzzle is about errors made when votes are counted during elections. The third puzzle is: are quantum computers possible?Comment: ICM 2018 plenary lecture, Rio de Janeiro, 36 pages, 7 Figure