Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2301.12723

Measuring robustness of dynamical systems. Relating time and space to length and precision

Abstract

Verification of discrete time or continuous time dynamical systems over the reals is known to be undecidable. It is however known that undecidability does not hold for various classes of systems: if robustness is defined as the fact that reachability relation is stable under infinitesimal perturbation, then their reachability relation is decidable. In other words, undecidability implies sensitivity under infinitesimal perturbation, a property usually not expected in systems considered in practice, and hence can be seen (somehow informally) as an artefact of the theory, that always assumes exactness. In a similar vein, it is known that, while undecidability holds for logical formulas over the reals, it does not hold when considering delta-undecidability: one must determine whether a property is true, or $δ$-far from being true. We first extend the previous statements to a theory for general (discrete time, continuous-time, and even hybrid) dynamical systems, and we relate the two approaches. We also relate robustness to some geometric properties of reachability relation. But mainly, when a system is robust, it then makes sense to quantify at which level of perturbation. We prove that assuming robustness to polynomial perturbations on precision leads to reachability verifiable in complexity class PSPACE, and even to a characterization of this complexity class. We prove that assuming robustness to polynomial perturbations on time or length of trajectories leads to similar statements, but with PTIME. It has been recently unexpectedly shown that the length of a solution of a polynomial ordinary differential equation corresponds to a time of computation: PTIME corresponds to solutions of polynomial differential equations of polynomial length. Our results argue that the answer is given by precision: space corresponds to the involved precision.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Manon Blanc, Olivier Bournez. 2023-06-08. Measuring robustness of dynamical systems. Relating time and space to length and precision. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12723

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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