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

On the Computational Complexity of MapReduce

In this paper we study MapReduce computations from a complexity-theoretic perspective. First, we formulate a uniform version of the MRC model of Karloff et al. (2010). We then show that the class of regular languages, and moreover all of sublogarithmic space, lies in constant round MRC. This result also applies to the MPC model of Andoni et al. (2014). In addition, we prove that, conditioned on a variant of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, there are strict hierarchies within MRC so that increasing the number of rounds or the amount of time per processor increases the power of MRC. To the best of our knowledge we are the first to approach the MapReduce model with complexity-theoretic techniques, and our work lays the foundation for further analysis relating MapReduce to established complexity classes

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New

On Oracles and Algorithmic Methods for Proving Lower Bounds

This paper studies the interaction of oracles with algorithmic approaches to proving circuit complexity lower bounds, establishing new results on two different kinds of questions. 1) We revisit some prominent open questions in circuit lower bounds, and provide a clean way of viewing them as circuit upper bound questions. Let Missing-String be the (total) search problem of producing a string that does not appear in a given list L containing M bit-strings of length N, where M < 2?. We show in a generic way how algorithms and uniform circuits (from restricted classes) for Missing-String imply complexity lower bounds (and in some cases, the converse holds as well). We give a local algorithm for Missing-String, which can compute any desired output bit making very few probes into the input, when the number of strings M is small enough. We apply this to prove a new nearly-optimal (up to oracles) time hierarchy theorem with advice. We show that the problem of constructing restricted uniform circuits for Missing-String is essentially equivalent to constructing functions without small non-uniform circuits, in a relativizing way. For example, we prove that small uniform depth-3 circuits for Missing-String would imply exponential circuit lower bounds for ?? EXP, and depth-3 lower bounds for Missing-String would imply non-trivial circuits (relative to an oracle) for ?? EXP problems. Both conclusions are longstanding open problems in circuit complexity. 2) It has been known since Impagliazzo, Kabanets, and Wigderson [JCSS 2002] that generic derandomizations improving subexponentially over exhaustive search would imply lower bounds such as NEXP ? ? ?/poly. Williams [SICOMP 2013] showed that Circuit-SAT algorithms running barely faster than exhaustive search would imply similar lower bounds. The known proofs of such results do not relativize (they use techniques from interactive proofs/PCPs). However, it has remained open whether there is an oracle under which the generic implications from circuit-analysis algorithms to circuit lower bounds fail. Building on an oracle of Fortnow, we construct an oracle relative to which the circuit approximation probability problem (CAPP) is in ?, yet EXP^{NP} has polynomial-size circuits. We construct an oracle relative to which SAT can be solved in "half-exponential" time, yet exponential time (EXP) has polynomial-size circuits. Improving EXP to NEXP would give an oracle relative to which ?? ? has "half-exponential" size circuits, which is open. (Recall it is known that ?? ? is not in "sub-half-exponential" size, and the proof relativizes.) Moreover, the running time of the SAT algorithm cannot be improved: relative to all oracles, if SAT is in "sub-half-exponential" time then EXP does not have polynomial-size circuits

Lower Bounds for Nondeterministic Semantic Read-Once Branching Programs

We prove exponential lower bounds on the size of semantic read-once 3-ary nondeterministic branching programs. Prior to our result the best that was known was for D-ary branching programs with |D| >= 2^{13}

Single-Step Quantum Search Using Problem Structure

The structure of satisfiability problems is used to improve search algorithms for quantum computers and reduce their required coherence times by using only a single coherent evaluation of problem properties. The structure of random k-SAT allows determining the asymptotic average behavior of these algorithms, showing they improve on quantum algorithms, such as amplitude amplification, that ignore detailed problem structure but remain exponential for hard problem instances. Compared to good classical methods, the algorithm performs better, on average, for weakly and highly constrained problems but worse for hard cases. The analytic techniques introduced here also apply to other quantum algorithms, supplementing the limited evaluation possible with classical simulations and showing how quantum computing can use ensemble properties of NP search problems.Comment: 39 pages, 12 figures. Revision describes further improvement with multiple steps (section 7). See also http://www.parc.xerox.com/dynamics/www/quantum.htm

Pseudorandomness for Approximate Counting and Sampling

We study computational procedures that use both randomness and nondeterminism. The goal of this paper is to derandomize such procedures under the weakest possible assumptions. Our main technical contribution allows one to “boost” a given hardness assumption: We show that if there is a problem in EXP that cannot be computed by poly-size nondeterministic circuits then there is one which cannot be computed by poly-size circuits that make non-adaptive NP oracle queries. This in particular shows that the various assumptions used over the last few years by several authors to derandomize Arthur-Merlin games (i.e., show AM = NP) are in fact all equivalent. We also define two new primitives that we regard as the natural pseudorandom objects associated with approximate counting and sampling of NP-witnesses. We use the “boosting” theorem and hashing techniques to construct these primitives using an assumption that is no stronger than that used to derandomize AM. We observe that Cai's proof that S_2^P ⊆ PP⊆(NP) and the learning algorithm of Bshouty et al. can be seen as reductions to sampling that are not probabilistic. As a consequence they can be derandomized under an assumption which is weaker than the assumption that was previously known to suffice

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