Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1406.7535

Hitting-sets for ROABP and Sum of Set-Multilinear circuits

Abstract

We give a $n^{O(\log n)}$-time ($n$ is the input size) blackbox polynomial identity testing algorithm for unknown-order read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs (ROABP). The best result known for this class was $n^{O(\log^2 n)}$ due to Forbes-Saptharishi-Shpilka (STOC 2014), and that too only for multilinear ROABP. We get rid of their exponential dependence on the individual degree. With this, we match the time-complexity for the unknown order ROABP with the known order ROABP (due to Forbes-Shpilka (FOCS 2013)) and also with the depth-$3$ set-multilinear circuits (due to Agrawal-Saha-Saxena (STOC 2013)). Our proof is simpler and involves a new technique called basis isolation. The depth-$3$ model has recently gained much importance, as it has become a stepping-stone to understanding general arithmetic circuits. Its restriction to multilinearity has known exponential lower bounds but no nontrivial blackbox identity tests. In this paper, we take a step towards designing such hitting-sets. We give the first subexponential whitebox PIT for the sum of constantly many set-multilinear depth-$3$ circuits. To achieve this, we define notions of distance and base sets. Distance, for a multilinear depth-$3$ circuit, measures how far are the partitions from a mere refinement. We design a hitting-set in time $n^{O(d \log n)}$ for $d$-distance. Further, we give an extension of our result to models where the distance is large but it is small when restricted to certain base sets (of variables). We also explore a new model of ROABP where the factor-matrices are invertible (called invertible-factor ROABP). We design a hitting-set in time poly($n^{w^2}$) for width-$w$ invertible-factor ROABP. Further, we could do without the invertibility restriction when $w=2$. Previously, the best result for width-$2$ ROABP was quasi-polynomial time (Forbes-Saptharishi-Shpilka, STOC 2014).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Manindra Agrawal, Rohit Gurjar, Arpita Korwar, Nitin Saxena. 2014-06-29. Hitting-sets for ROABP and Sum of Set-Multilinear circuits. https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7535

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC