On approximate majority and probabilistic time

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
On the Complexity of Parallel Hardness Amplification for One-Way Functions Chi-Jen Lu Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
Advertisements

Complexity Theory Lecture 6
Extracting Randomness From Few Independent Sources Boaz Barak, IAS Russell Impagliazzo, UCSD Avi Wigderson, IAS.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
COMPLEXITY THEORY CSci 5403 LECTURE XVI: COUNTING PROBLEMS AND RANDOMIZED REDUCTIONS.
Lecture 16: Relativization Umans Complexity Theory Lecturess.
Private Approximation of Search Problems Amos Beimel Paz Carmi Kobbi Nissim Enav Weinreb Ben Gurion University Research partially Supported by the Frankel.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Non-Uniform ACC Circuit Lower Bounds Ryan Williams IBM Almaden TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA A A.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 5 April 13, 2015.
BPP Contained in PH By Michael Sipser; Clemens Lautemann Clemens Lautemann Presenter: Jie Meng.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 7 April 20, 2004.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 5 April 13, 2004.
Derandomization: New Results and Applications Emanuele Viola Harvard University March 2006.
1 Polynomial Church-Turing thesis A decision problem can be solved in polynomial time by using a reasonable sequential model of computation if and only.
Arithmetic Hardness vs. Randomness Valentine Kabanets SFU.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 12 May 6, CS151 Lecture 122 Outline The Polynomial-Time Hierarachy (PH) Complete problems for classes in PH, PSPACE.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 7 April 20, 2015.
–Def: A language L is in BPP c,s ( 0  s(n)  c(n)  1,  n  N) if there exists a probabilistic poly-time TM M s.t. : 1.  w  L, Pr[M accepts w]  c(|w|),
Derandomizing LOGSPACE Based on a paper by Russell Impagliazo, Noam Nissan and Avi Wigderson Presented by Amir Rosenfeld.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 6 April 15, 2004.
Hardness amplification proofs require majority Emanuele Viola Columbia University Work done at Harvard, IAS, and Columbia Joint work with Ronen Shaltiel.
Complexity ©D. Moshkovitz 1 And Randomized Computations The Polynomial Hierarchy.
On Everlasting Security in the Hybrid Bounded Storage Model Danny Harnik Moni Naor.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Correlation testing for affine invariant properties on Shachar Lovett Institute for Advanced Study Joint with Hamed Hatami (McGill)
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen.
February 18, 2015CS21 Lecture 181 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 18 February 18, 2015.
Computational Complexity Theory Lecture 2: Reductions, NP-completeness, Cook-Levin theorem Indian Institute of Science.
On Constructing Parallel Pseudorandom Generators from One-Way Functions Emanuele Viola Harvard University June 2005.
Private Approximation of Search Problems Amos Beimel Paz Carmi Kobbi Nissim Enav Weinreb (Technion)
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 12 May 6, QSAT is PSPACE-complete Theorem: QSAT is PSPACE-complete. Proof: 8 x 1 9 x 2 8 x 3 … Qx n φ(x 1, x 2,
On approximate majority and probabilistic time Emanuele Viola Institute for advanced study Work done during Ph.D. at Harvard University June 2007.
Fall 2013 CMU CS Computational Complexity Lectures 8-9 Randomness, communication, complexity of unique solutions These slides are mostly a resequencing.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 17: Natural Proofs.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 16 May 20, The outer verifier Theorem: NP  PCP[log n, polylog n] Proof (first steps): –define: Polynomial Constraint.
Pseudorandom Bits for Constant-Depth Circuits with Few Arbitrary Symmetric Gates Emanuele Viola Harvard University June 2005.
Lower Bounds Emanuele Viola Columbia University February 2008.
Pseudo-random generators Talk for Amnon ’ s seminar.
Comparing Notions of Full Derandomization Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute With thanks to Dieter van Melkebeek.
Almost SL=L, and Near-Perfect Derandomization Oded Goldreich The Weizmann Institute Avi Wigderson IAS, Princeton Hebrew University.
Pseudorandomness: New Results and Applications Emanuele Viola IAS April 2007.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
Negation-Limited Formulas
A new characterization of ACC0 and probabilistic CC0
Circuit Lower Bounds A combinatorial approach to P vs NP
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Computability and Complexity
Tight Fourier Tails for AC0 Circuits
Turnstile Streaming Algorithms Might as Well Be Linear Sketches
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
Pseudo-derandomizing learning and approximation
The Curve Merger (Dvir & Widgerson, 2008)
Finite Model Theory Lecture 6
CS154, Lecture 12: Time Complexity
Indistinguishability by adaptive procedures with advice, and lower bounds on hardness amplification proofs Aryeh Grinberg, U. Haifa Ronen.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
The Polynomial Hierarchy
Emanuele Viola Harvard University June 2005
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 7 April 23, 2019.
Switching Lemmas and Proof Complexity
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 5 April 16, 2019.
On Derandomizing Algorithms that Err Extremely Rarely
Recent Structure Lemmas for Depth-Two Threshold Circuits
Stronger Connections Between Circuit Analysis and Circuit Lower Bounds, via PCPs of Proximity Lijie Chen Ryan Williams.
On Probabilistic Time versus Alternating Time
Emanuele Viola Harvard University October 2005
Pseudorandomness: New Results and Applications
Presentation transcript:

On approximate majority and probabilistic time Emanuele Viola Institute for advanced study January 2007

BPP vs. POLY-TIME HIERARCHY Probabilistic Polynomial Time (BPP): for every x, Pr [ M(x) errs ] · 1/3 Strong belief: BPP = P [NW,BFNW,IW,…] Still open: BPP µ NP ? Theorem [SG,L; ‘83]: BPP µ S2 P Recall NP = S1 P ! 9 y M(x,y) S2 P ! 9 y 8 z M(x,y,z)

The problem we study More precisely [SG,L] give BPTime(t) µ S2Time( t2 ) Question[This Talk]: Is quadratic slow-down necessary? Motivation: Lower bounds Know NTime ≠ Time on some models [P+,F,…] Technique: speed-up computation with quantifiers To prove NTime ≠ BPTime cannot afford Time( t2 ) [DvM]

Approximate Majority Input: R = 101111011011101011 Task: Tell Pri [ Ri = 1] ¸ 2/3 from Pri [ Ri = 1] · 1/3 Approximate: Do not care if Pri [ Ri = 1] ~ 1/2 Model: Depth-3 circuit V Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Depth V V V V V V V V R = 101111011011101011

The connection [FSS] M(x;u) 2 BPTime(t) R = 11011011101011 Compute M(x): Tell Pru[M(x) = 1] ¸ 2/3 Compute Appr-Maj from Pru[M(x) = 1] · 1/3 BPTime(t) µ S2 Time(t’) = 9 8 Time(t’) Running time t’ Bottom fan-in f = t’ / t run M at most t’/t times |R| = 2t Ri = M(x;i) V Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ V V V V V V V V L f L 101111011011101011

Our Negative Result Theorem[V] : Small depth-3 circuits for Approximate Majority on N bits have bottom fan-in W(log N) Corollary: Quadratic slow-down necessary for relativizing techniques: BPTime A (t) µ S2Time A (t1.99) Proof of Corollary: BPTime (t) µ S2 Time (t’) ) [FSS] Appr-Maj on N = 2t bits 2 depth-3, bottom fan-in t’ / t. By Theorem: t’ / t = (t). Q.E.D.

Quasilinear-time simulation? Question: BPTime(t) µ S3 Time(t ¢ polylog t) ? Related: Appr-Maj 2 depth-3 poly-size ? arbitrary bottom fan-in Previous results & problems: [SG,L] Appr-Maj 2 depth-3 size Nlog N [A] Appr-Maj 2 depth-3 size poly(N) nonuniform [A] Appr-Maj 2 depth-O(1) size poly(N)

Our Positive Results Theorem[V] : There are uniform depth-3 poly(N)-size circuits for Approximate Majority on N bits Uniform version of Ajtai’s result Theorem[DvM,V]: BPTime (t) µ S3Time (t ¢ log5 t)

Summary Appr-Maj on N bits BPTime(t) [SG,L] 2 size Nlog N depth 3 µ S2Time( t2 ) [A] 2 size poly(N) depth 3 non-uniform ---------- 2 size poly(N) depth O(1) µ SO(1)Time( t ) [V] 2 size 2N depth 3 bottom fan-in ¢log N µ S2Time (t1.99) w.r.t. oracle [DvM,V] µ S3Time (t¢log5 t)

Rest of slides Proof of bottom fan-in lower bound Other result 3Time (t) µ BPTime (t1+o(1)) on restricted models

Our negative result Theorem[V]: 2N-size depth-3 circuits for Approximate Majority on N bits have bottom fan-in W(log N) Switching lemmas fail Cannot use [H] for Approximate-Majority [SBI] ) bottom fan-in ¸ (log N)1/2 Independently: [R] improves [SBI] alternative proof of theorem Note: No 2W(N) bound for depth-3 w/ bottom fan-in w(1)

Our Negative Result Theorem[V]: 2N-size depth-3 circuits for Approximate Majority on N bits have bottom fan-in f = W(log N) Recall: Tells R 2 YES := { R : Pri [ Ri = 1] ¸ 2/3 } from R 2 NO := { R : Pri [ Ri = 1] · 1/3 } V Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ V V V V V V V V L f L R = 101111011011101011 |R| = N

Proof Circuit is OR of s depth-2 circuits By definition of OR : R 2 YES ) some Ci (R) = 1 R 2 NO ) all Ci (R) = 0 By averaging, fix C = Ci s.t. PrR 2 YES [C (R) = 1 ] ¸ 1/s 8 R 2 NO ) C (R) = 0 Claim: Impossible if C has bottom fan-in ·  log N V C1 C2 C3 L L Cs

CNF Claim Depth-2 circuit ) CNF (x1Vx2V:x3 ) Æ (:x4) Æ (x5Vx3) bottom fan-in ) clause size Claim: All CNF C with clauses of size ¢log N Either PrR 2 YES [C (R) = 1 ] · 1 / 2N or there is R 2 NO : C(R) = 1 Note: Claim ) Theorem Æ V V V V V x1 x2 x3 … xN

Proof Outline Either PrR 2 YES [C(R)=1]·1/2N or 9 R 2 NO : C(R) = 1 Definition: S µ {x1,x2,…,xN} is a covering if every clause has a variable in S E.g.: S = {x3,x4} C = (x1Vx2V:x3 ) Æ (:x4) Æ (x5Vx3) Proof idea: Consider smallest covering S Case |S| BIG : PrR 2 YES [C (R) = 1 ] · 1 / 2N Case |S| tiny : Fix few variables and repeat

Case |S| BIG PrR 2 YES [C(R) = 1] · Pr [ 8 i, Gi(R) = 1 ] Either PrR 2 YES [C(R)=1]·1/2N or 9 R 2 NO : C(R) = 1 Case |S| BIG |S| ¸ N ) have N /(¢log N) disjoint clauses Gi Can find Gi greedily PrR 2 YES [C(R) = 1] · Pr [ 8 i, Gi(R) = 1 ] = Õi Pr[ Gi(R) = 1] (independence) · Õi (1 – 1/3log N ) = Õi (1 – 1/NO()) = (1 – 1/NO()) |S| · e-N(1)

Case |S| tiny Either PrR 2 YES [C(R)=1]·1/2N or 9 R 2 NO : C(R) = 1 |S| < N ) Fix variables in S Maximize PrR 2 YES [C(R)=1] Note: S covering ) clauses shrink Example (x1Vx2Vx3 ) Æ (:x3) Æ (x5V:x4) (x1Vx2 ) Æ (x5) Repeat Consider smallest covering S’, etc. x3 Ã 0 x4 Ã 1

Finish up Recall: Repeat ) shrink clauses Either PrR 2 YES [C(R)=1]·1/2N or 9 R 2 NO : C(R) = 1 Finish up Recall: Repeat ) shrink clauses So repeat at most ¢log N times When you stop: Either smallest covering size ¸ N Or C = 1 Fixed · (¢log N) N ¿ N vars. Set rest to 0 ) R 2 NO : C(R) = 1 Q.E.D.

Rest of slides Proof of bottom fan-in lower bound Other result 3Time (t) µ BPTime (t1+o(1)) on restricted models

(x1Vx2V:x3 ) Æ (:x4) Æ (x5Vx3) Æ (x1Vx6V:x3 ) The model Time1 Input (x1Vx2V:x3 ) Æ (:x4) Æ (x5Vx3) Æ (x1Vx6V:x3 ) Random access 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sequential access work tape

Time Lower Bound for SAT Theorem [MS,vMR]: NTime (n) µ Time1 (n1.22) Note: ``combinatorics’’ does not work Palindromes 2 Time1 (n1+o(1)) Proof by contradiction: Suppose NTime(n) µ Time1 (n1.22) µ O(1) Time(n0.1) (speed-up with quantifiers) µ NTime(n0.9) (collapse by assumption) Contradicts NTime hierarchy Q.E.D.

(x1Vx2V:x3 ) Æ (:x4) Æ (x5Vx3) Æ (x1Vx6V:x3 ) The model BPTime1 Input (x1Vx2V:x3 ) Æ (:x4) Æ (x5Vx3) Æ (x1Vx6V:x3 ) Random access 0 1 Sequential access work tape with coins

Our BPTime Lower Bound for 3 Theorem [V] : 3Time (n) µ BPTime1 (n1+o(1)) Proof by contradiction (Inspired by [DvM]): Suppose 3Time(n) µ BPTime1 (n1+o(1)) µ BPn0.9 Time1(n1+o(1)) (derandomize [INW]) µ 3 Time(n.99) ([V] + [MS]) Contradicts 3 Time hierarchy Q.E.D. Note: Quadratic slow-down ) won’t work for 2

Seen so far Theorem[SG,L]: BPTime(t) µ S2Time( t2 ) Related to Approximate Majority Theorem [V] : 3Time (n) µ BPTime1 (n1+o(1)) Appr-Maj on N bits BPTime(t) [V] 2 size 2N depth 3 bottom fan-in ¢log N µ S2Time (t1.99) w.r.t. oracle [DvM,V] 2 size poly(N) depth 3 uniform µ S3Time (t¢log5 t)