Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1205.1183

On the Complexity of Trial and Error

Xiaohui Bei·Ning Chen·Shengyu Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Motivated by certain applications from physics, biochemistry, economics, and computer science, in which the objects under investigation are not accessible because of various limitations, we propose a trial-and-error model to examine algorithmic issues in such situations. Given a search problem with a hidden input, we are asked to find a valid solution, to find which we can propose candidate solutions (trials), and use observed violations (errors), to prepare future proposals. In accordance with our motivating applications, we consider the fairly broad class of constraint satisfaction problems, and assume that errors are signaled by a verification oracle in the format of the index of a violated constraint (with the content of the constraint still hidden). Our discoveries are summarized as follows. On one hand, despite the seemingly very little information provided by the verification oracle, efficient algorithms do exist for a number of important problems. For the Nash, Core, Stable Matching, and SAT problems, the unknown-input versions are as hard as the corresponding known-input versions, up to a factor of polynomial. We further give almost tight bounds on the latter two problems' trial complexities. On the other hand, there are problems whose complexities are substantially increased in the unknown-input model. In particular, no time-efficient algorithms exist (under standard hardness assumptions) for Graph Isomorphism and Group Isomorphism problems. The tools used to achieve these results include order theory, strong ellipsoid method, and some non-standard reductions. Our model investigates the value of information, and our results demonstrate that the lack of input information can introduce various levels of extra difficulty. The model exhibits intimate connections with (and we hope can also serve as a useful supplement to) certain existing learning and complexity theories.

Explore related subjects

cs.CCcs.DScs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xiaohui Bei, Ning Chen, Shengyu Zhang. 2013-04-18. On the Complexity of Trial and Error. https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1183

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Formalizing PARITY Circuit Lower Bounds in Lean

We formalize Hastad's PARITY lower bound in Lean using the switching lemma. For every fixed d >= 2, formulas and DAG circuits of computation depth at most d computing PARITY on n inputs require size exp(Omega_d(n^(1/(d-1)))) for all sufficiently large n. This matches the classical upper bound up to constants in the exponent and implies that PARITY is not in nonuniform AC0. We also construct a polynomial-size, logarithmic-depth bounded-fan-in formula family for PARITY, providing a witness to NC1 is not a subset of AC0 for the formalized models. The Lean source code is available at https://github.com/formalcs/circuit-complexity and is checked with Lean 4.33.1 and mathlib 4.33.1.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Constant-Coin Complete-Information Debates for $\mathsf{P}$ with Arbitrarily Small Strong Error

We study complete-information debate systems in which a probabilistic finite-state verifier reads the alternating messages of a prover and a refuter. Demirci, Say, and Yakaryılmaz showed that every language in $\mathsf{P}$ has such debates checkable with a constant number of random bits and arbitrarily small weak error. Their strong-error construction, which also counts nontermination as failure, did not permit arbitrary error reduction. We close this gap: for every $L\in\mathsf{P}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a constant-space verifier using a constant number of private coin tosses that has perfect completeness and strong error at most $\varepsilon$. The verifier simulates a polynomial-time alternating multihead finite automaton, privately spot-checking one of its input heads. The key observation is that, on a nonmember, the refuter may concede any round in which the prover first misreports a head reading. This ensures termination against every prover when the refuter follows the specified strategy, and permits strong-error reduction by repetition.

cs.CC↗