Comparing Notions of Full Derandomization Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute With thanks to Dieter van Melkebeek.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Impagliazzos Worlds in Arithmetic Complexity: A Progress Report Scott Aaronson and Andrew Drucker MIT 100% QUANTUM-FREE TALK (FROM COWS NOT TREATED WITH.
Advertisements

Oracles Are Subtle But Not Malicious Scott Aaronson University of Waterloo.
The Equivalence of Sampling and Searching Scott Aaronson MIT.
Complexity Theory Lecture 6
Lecture 9. Resource bounded KC K-, and C- complexities depend on unlimited computational resources. Kolmogorov himself first observed that we can put resource.
Derandomization & Cryptography Boaz Barak, Weizmann Shien Jin Ong, MIT Salil Vadhan, Harvard.
Approximate List- Decoding and Hardness Amplification Valentine Kabanets (SFU) joint work with Russell Impagliazzo and Ragesh Jaiswal (UCSD)
Many-to-one Trapdoor Functions and their Relations to Public-key Cryptosystems M. Bellare S. Halevi A. Saha S. Vadhan.
Isolation Technique April 16, 2001 Jason Ku Tao Li.
Uniform Hardness vs. Randomness Tradeoffs for Arthur-Merlin Games. Danny Gutfreund, Hebrew U. Ronen Shaltiel, Weizmann Inst. Amnon Ta-Shma, Tel-Aviv U.
Foundations of Cryptography Lecture 10 Lecturer: Moni Naor.
Lecture 16: Relativization Umans Complexity Theory Lecturess.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 17 May 27, CS151 Lecture 172 Outline elements of the proof of the PCP Theorem counting problems –#P and its relation.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 8 April 22, 2004.
Theory of Computing Lecture 16 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Circuit Complexity and Derandomization Tokyo Institute of Technology Akinori Kawachi.
A survey on derandomizing BPP and AM Danny Gutfreund, Hebrew U. Ronen Shaltiel, Weizmann Inst. Amnon Ta-Shma, Tel-Aviv U.
Time Hierarchies with One Bit of Advice Konstantin Pervyshev Steklov Mathematics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia joint work with Dieter van Melkebeek.
Time vs Randomness a GITCS presentation February 13, 2012.
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 7 April 20, 2004.
Some Thoughts regarding Unconditional Derandomization Oded Goldreich Weizmann Institute of Science RANDOM 2010.
Perfect and Statistical Secrecy, probabilistic algorithms, Definitions of Easy and Hard, 1-Way FN -- formal definition.
Derandomization: New Results and Applications Emanuele Viola Harvard University March 2006.
On Uniform Amplification of Hardness in NP Luca Trevisan STOC 05 Paper Review Present by Hai Xu.
Probabilistic Complexity. Probabilistic Algorithms Def: A probabilistic Turing Machine M is a type of non- deterministic TM, where each non-deterministic.
Arithmetic Hardness vs. Randomness Valentine Kabanets SFU.
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|),
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 8 April 22, 2015.
Complexity ©D. Moshkovitz 1 And Randomized Computations The Polynomial Hierarchy.
In a World of BPP=P Oded Goldreich Weizmann Institute of Science.
Randomness – A computational complexity view Avi Wigderson Institute for Advanced Study.
One Complexity Theorist’s View of Quantum Computing Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute.
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen.
Optimal Proof Systems and Sparse Sets Harry Buhrman, CWI Steve Fenner, South Carolina Lance Fortnow, NEC/Chicago Dieter van Melkebeek, DIMACS/Chicago.
Theory of Computing Lecture 17 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Eric Allender Rutgers University The Strange Link between Incompressibility and Complexity China Theory Week, Aarhus August 13, 2012.
. CLASSES RP AND ZPP By: SARIKA PAMMI. CONTENTS:  INTRODUCTION  RP  FACTS ABOUT RP  MONTE CARLO ALGORITHM  CO-RP  ZPP  FACTS ABOUT ZPP  RELATION.
Pseudorandom Generators and Typically-Correct Derandomization Jeff Kinne, Dieter van Melkebeek University of Wisconsin-Madison Ronen Shaltiel University.
PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION By Remanth Dabbati. INDEX  Probabilistic Turing Machine  Probabilistic Complexity Classes  Probabilistic Algorithms.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 1a: Problems and Languages.
On approximate majority and probabilistic time Emanuele Viola Institute for advanced study Work done during Ph.D. at Harvard University June 2007.
Eric Allender Rutgers University Circuit Complexity meets the Theory of Randomness SUNY Buffalo, November 11, 2010.
Fall 2013 CMU CS Computational Complexity Lectures 8-9 Randomness, communication, complexity of unique solutions These slides are mostly a resequencing.
The Computational Complexity of Satisfiability Lance Fortnow NEC Laboratories America.
Eric Allender Rutgers University Graph Automorphism & Circuit Size Joint work with Joshua A. Grochow and Cristopher Moore (SFI) Simons Workshop, September.
My Favorite Ten Complexity Theorems of the Past Decade II Lance Fortnow University of Chicago.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 17: Natural Proofs.
List Decoding Using the XOR Lemma Luca Trevisan U.C. Berkeley.
Pseudo-random generators Talk for Amnon ’ s seminar.
Complexity 24-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Interactive Proofs.
Eric Allender Rutgers University Curiouser and Curiouser: The Link between Incompressibility and Complexity CiE Special Session, June 19, 2012.
Technion Haifa Research Labs Israel Institute of Technology Underapproximation for Model-Checking Based on Random Cryptographic Constructions Arie Matsliah.
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing QIC 710 / CS 667 / PH 767 / CO 681 / AM 871 Richard Cleve DC 2117 Lectures
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 9b: Pseudo-Random Generators (PRGs) for BPP: - Hardness vs. randomness - Nisan-Wigderson (NW) Pseudo- Random Generator.
Pseudo-randomness. Randomized complexity classes model: probabilistic Turing Machine –deterministic TM with additional read-only tape containing “coin.
Complexity Theory and Explicit Constructions of Ramsey Graphs Rahul Santhanam University of Edinburgh.
Probabilistic Algorithms
Derandomization & Cryptography
Igor Carboni Oliveira University of Oxford
Pseudorandomness when the odds are against you
Perspective on Lower Bounds: Diagonalization
My Favorite Ten Complexity Theorems of the Past Decade II
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
Pseudo-derandomizing learning and approximation
How to Delegate Computations: The Power of No-Signaling Proofs
Pseudo-deterministic Proofs
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
On Derandomizing Algorithms that Err Extremely Rarely
Presentation transcript:

Comparing Notions of Full Derandomization Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute With thanks to Dieter van Melkebeek

Derandomization Impagliazzo-Wigderson ’97 If E requires 2 (n) size circuits then P = BPP. Andreev-Clementi-Rolim ’98 If efficient hitting set generators exist then P = BPP.

Derandomization E requires 2 (n) size circuits. Efficient hitting set generators exist. These assumptions are equivalent. Are they equivalent to P = BPP? How about Promise-BPP is easy? Main Result There exist a relativized world where Promise-BPP is easy but E has small circuits.

Derandomization Notions I. P = NP. II. Pseudorandom generators exist. III. Circuit approximation is easy. IV. P = BPP. V. P = RP. VI. P = ZPP.

Hypothesis II The following are equivalent Efficient Pseudorandom generators. Efficient Hitting Set generators. E requires 2 (n) size circuits.

Hypothesis II The following are equivalent Efficient Pseudorandom generators. Efficient Hitting Set generators. E requires 2 (n) size circuits. Pseudorandom Generator A function G: k log n  n s.t. for all circuits C of size n,

Hypothesis II The following are equivalent Efficient Pseudorandom generators. Efficient Hitting Set generators. E requires 2 (n) size circuits. Hitting Set Generator H maps 1 n to a polynomial-list of strings such that if C is size n and accepts at least half of its inputs then one of those inputs is in H(1 n ).

Proofs of Equivalences Efficient Pseudorandom Generators imply Efficient Hitting Set Generators. Range of pseudorandom generator is a hitting set.

Proofs of Equivalence Hitting set generators imply E requires 2 (n) size circuits [ISW,ACR] Let k(n) = 1+log of the size of the hitting set generated by H(1 n ). Let S be the set of prefixes of elements of H(1 n ) of size k(n). S is in E. If S had 2 o(k(n)) size circuits we could build C of size n that avoids strings whose prefixes are in S.

Proofs of Equivalence E requires 2 (n) size circuits implies efficient pseudorandom generators exist. Impagliazzo-Wigderson ‘97

P = NP and Hypothesis II P = NP  Hitting Set Generators Probabilistic methods guarantee existence of hitting sets. Minimum generator in polynomial-time hierarchy. Relative to a random oracle, P  NP and Pseudorandom generators exist.

Hypothesis III The following are equivalent Circuit Approximation is Easy Promise-BPP is easy Promise-RP is easy Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

Hypothesis III The following are equivalent Circuit Approximation is Easy Given C and 1 n can compute in poly(|c|,n) time, a value v within 1/n of accepting probability of C. Promise-BPP is easy Promise-RP is easy Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

Hypothesis III The following are equivalent Circuit Approximation is Easy Promise-BPP is easy For Probabilistic Polytime M there is L in P, If Pr(M(x) accepts)>2/3 then x in L. If Pr(M(x) accepts)<1/3 then x not in L. Promise-RP is easy Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

Hypothesis III The following are equivalent Circuit Approximation is Easy Promise-BPP is easy Promise-RP is easy For Probabilistic Polytime M there is L in P, If Pr(M(x) accepts)>1/2 then x in L. If Pr(M(x) accepts)= 0 then x not in L. Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

Hypothesis III The following are equivalent Circuit Approximation is Easy Promise-BPP is easy Promise-RP is easy Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Given C accepting at least half of inputs, can in polytime find an accepting input.

Proofs of Equivalences Circuit Approximation implies finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

Proofs of Equivalences Circuit Approximation implies finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 1 Inputs of C beginning with 0

Proofs of Equivalences Circuit Approximation implies finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 1 Inputs of C beginning with 0 Approximate the size of each one within factor of 1/n 2 and take larger.

Proofs of Equivalences Circuit Approximation implies finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 1

Proofs of Equivalences Circuit Approximation implies finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 11 Inputs of C beginning with 10

Proofs of Equivalences Circuit Approximation implies finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 11 Inputs of C beginning with 10 Repeat …

Proofs of Equivalences Finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs implies Promise-RP is easy. Convert Promise-RP machine M to a circuit whose inputs are random coins to M.

Proofs of Equivalences Promise RP is easy implies Promise BPP is easy. Lautemann’s 1983 proof that BPP is in  2 actually gives Promise-BPP in Promise-RP Promise-RP.

Proofs of Equivalences Promise BPP is easy implies Circuit Approximation is easy Consider probabilistic machine M that chooses m random inputs to C and accepts if j accepts. M will accept w.h.p if accepting probability of C is > j/m + a little. M will reject w.h.p if accepting probability of C is < j/m – a little.

The Other Hypotheses III. Promise-BPP is easy implies IV. P = BPP implies V. P = RP implies VI. P = ZPP.

The Other Hypotheses III. Promise-BPP is easy implies IV. P = BPP implies V. P = RP implies VI. P = ZPP. Impagliazzo-Naor ’88 Generic Oracles make P = BPP but Promise-BPP is not easy.

The Other Hypotheses III. Promise-BPP is easy implies IV. P = BPP implies V. P = RP implies VI. P = ZPP. Muchnik and Vereschagin ’96 Relativized world where P = RP  BPP

The Other Hypotheses III. Promise-BPP is easy implies IV. P = BPP implies V. P = RP implies VI. P = ZPP. Muchnik and Vereschagin ’96 Relativized world where P = ZPP  RP

All of the Hypotheses Baker-Gill-Solovay ’75 Oracle where P = NP and all hypotheses are true. Heller ’84 and Kurtz ’85 Oracle where ZPP = EXP and all hypotheses fail in strong way.

Relationship of II and III Pseudorandom generators imply circuit approximation. Andreev-Clementi-Rolim ’98 Hitting set generators imply Promise-BPP is easy. Kabanets and Cai ’00 Hypotheses equivalent if one can compute minimum circuit size.

Our Result There exists a relativized world where E has linear-size circuits and we can efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Corollary There exists relativized world where Hypothesis II is false and III is true.

Relativization Result relative to set A means all machines can query A at unit cost. All results mentioned in this talk hold relative to all sets A. Any proof that Hypothesis II and III are equivalent would require different techniques.

Differences of II and III 1-sided vs. 2-sided error nonissue. Hypothesis II Generators must work against all circuits. Hypothesis III Given circuit can find accepting input.

Oracle Construction Issues Idea: Use circuit to point to its own accepting input. Cannot encode every circuit or P = NP and Hypothesis II is true. Just want to encode accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. We do not know as we construct which circuits to encode.

Oracle Construction Let L(M A ) be complete for E. Stage n: Pick random y n of length 5n for all n. Promise x in L(M A )  in A. This gives us E has linear size circuits with advice y n.

Stage n continued For all circuits C and current A If C A accepts some input then encode that input at If C A accepts no input then encode at all strings of A queried on by C A (x) on at least 1/(2|c|) of inputs x.

Why this works We have y 1 hardwired. If we know y k and C A accepts at least half the inputs we will either Find an x such that C A (x) accepts. Find a y j for some j > k. We repeat until we find an x since C cannot query y j for j > |C|.

Relativization All of the equivalences and implications discussed relativize, i.e., hold if all machines involved have access to the same oracle. Most combinatorial and algebraic techniques in complexity theory relativize.

Hard Sets Implies PRGs Klivans-van Melkebeek ‘99 If f is computable in exponential time relative to A and no subexponential size circuit family with B gates can compute f then there exists an efficient pseudo- random generator computable with an oracle for A secure against circuits with oracle gates for B.

Slight Derandomization Babai-Fortnow-Nisan-Wigderson If BPP is not infinitely often in subexponential time then EXP = MA.

Slight Derandomization Babai-Fortnow-Nisan-Wigderson If BPP is not infinitely often in subexponential time then EXP has polynomial-size circuits. Babai-Fortnow-Lund, Nisan If EXP has polynomial-size circuits then EXP = MA.

Collapse of NEXP Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits then NEXP = MA.

Collapse of NEXP Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits then NEXP = EXP.

Collapse of NEXP Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits and EXP = AM then NEXP = EXP.

Collapse of NEXP Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits and EXP = AM then NEXP = EXP. Babai-Fortnow-Lund, Nisan If EXP has polynomial-size circuits then EXP = MA  AM.

Limited Derandomization Impagliazzo-Wigderson ’98 If EXP  BPP then BPP is infinitely often heuristically in subexponential time. Open if this relativizes. Uses special random-self-reducible and downward reducible properties of the permanent. Same properties used in first interactive proofs of the permanent.

Future Directions How does Promise-ZPP is easy fit in? Connections to other hypotheses? If for every n there is an x with high n j time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity and low n k time bounded Kolmogorov complexity then efficient pseudorandom generators exist.