Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2402.06740

Nearest Neighbor Complexity and Boolean Circuits

Abstract

A nearest neighbor representation of a Boolean function $f$ is a set of vectors (anchors) labeled by $0$ or $1$ such that $f(\vec{x}) = 1$ if and only if the closest anchor to $\vec{x}$ is labeled by $1$. This model was introduced by Hajnal, Liu, and Turán (2022), who studied bounds on the number of anchors required to represent Boolean functions under different choices of anchors (real vs. Boolean vectors) as well as the more expressive model of $k$-nearest neighbors. We initiate the study of the representational power of nearest and $k$-nearest neighbors through Boolean circuit complexity. To this end, we establish a connection between Boolean functions with polynomial nearest neighbor complexity and those that can be efficiently represented by classes based on linear inequalities -- min-plus polynomial threshold functions -- previously studied in relation to threshold circuits. This extends an observation of Hajnal et al. (2022). We obtain exponential lower bounds on the $k$-nearest neighbors complexity of explicit $n$-variate functions, assuming $k \leq n^{1-ε}$. Previously, no superlinear lower bound was known for any $k>1$. Next, we further extend the connection between nearest neighbor representations and circuits to the $k$-nearest neighbors case. As a result, we show that proving superpolynomial lower bounds for the $k$-nearest neighbors complexity of an explicit function for arbitrary $k$ would require a breakthrough in circuit complexity. In addition, we prove an exponential separation between the nearest neighbor and $k$-nearest neighbors complexity (for unrestricted $k$) of an explicit function. These results address questions raised by Hajnal et al. (2022) of proving strong lower bounds for $k$-nearest neighbors and understanding the role of the parameter $k$. Finally, we devise new bounds on the nearest neighbor complexity for several explicit functions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mason DiCicco, Vladimir Podolskii, Daniel Reichman. 2024-05-23. Nearest Neighbor Complexity and Boolean Circuits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06740

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