Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1811.03841

Unique End of Potential Line

Abstract

This paper studies the complexity of problems in PPAD $\cap$ PLS that have unique solutions. Three well-known examples of such problems are the problem of finding a fixpoint of a contraction map, finding the unique sink of a Unique Sink Orientation (USO), and solving the P-matrix Linear Complementarity Problem (P-LCP). Each of these are promise-problems, and when the promise holds, they always possess unique solutions. We define the complexity class UEOPL to capture problems of this type. We first define a class that we call EOPL, which consists of all problems that can be reduced to End-of-Potential-Line. This problem merges the canonical PPAD-complete problem End-of-Line, with the canonical PLS-complete problem Sink-of-Dag, and so EOPL captures problems that can be solved by a line-following algorithm that also simultaneously decreases a potential function. Promise-UEOPL is a promise-subclass of EOPL in which the line in the End-of-Potential-Line instance is guaranteed to be unique via a promise. We turn this into a non-promise class UEOPL, by adding an extra solution type to EOPL that captures any pair of points that are provably on two different lines. We show that UEOPL $\subseteq$ EOPL $\subseteq$ CLS, and that all of our motivating problems are contained in UEOPL: specifically USO, P-LCP, and finding a fixpoint of a Piecewise-Linear Contraction under an $\ell_p$-norm all lie in UEOPL. Our results also imply that parity games, mean-payoff games, discounted games, and simple-stochastic games lie in UEOPL. All of our containment results are proved via a reduction to a problem that we call One-Permutation Discrete Contraction (OPDC). This problem is motivated by a discretized version of contraction, but it is also closely related to the USO problem. We show that OPDC lies in UEOPL, and we are also able to show that OPDC is UEOPL-complete.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John Fearnley, Spencer Gordon, Ruta Mehta, Rahul Savani. 2018-11-09. Unique End of Potential Line. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03841

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