Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2410.02636

Inapproximability of Finding Sparse Vectors in Codes, Subspaces, and Lattices

Abstract

Finding sparse vectors is a fundamental problem that arises in several contexts including codes, subspaces, and lattices. In this work, we prove strong inapproximability results for all these variants using a novel approach that even bypasses the PCP theorem. Our main result is that it is NP-hard (under randomized reductions) to approximate the sparsest vector in a real subspace within any constant factor; the gap can be further amplified using tensoring. Our reduction has the property that there is a Boolean solution in the completeness case. As a corollary, this immediately recovers the state-of-the-art inapproximability factors for the shortest vector problem (SVP) on lattices. Our proof extends the range of $\ell_p$ (quasi) norms for which hardness was previously known, from $p\geq 1$ to all $p\geq 0$, answering a question raised by [Khot05]. Previous hardness results for SVP, and the related minimum distance problem (MDP) for error-correcting codes, all use lattice/coding gadgets that have an abundance of codewords in a ball of radius smaller than the minimum distance. In contrast, our reduction only needs many codewords in a ball of radius slightly larger than the minimum distance. This enables an easy derandomization of our reduction for finite fields, giving a new elementary proof of deterministic hardness for MDP. We believe this weaker density requirement might offer a promising approach to showing deterministic hardness of SVP, a long elusive goal. The key technical ingredient underlying our result for real subspaces is a proof that in the kernel of a random Rademacher matrix, the support of any two linearly independent vectors have very little overlap. A broader motivation behind this work is the development of inapproximability techniques for problems over the reals. We hope that the approach we develop could enable progress on analytic variants of sparsest vector.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vijay Bhattiprolu, Venkatesan Guruswami, Euiwoong Lee, Xuandi Ren. 2025-06-24. Inapproximability of Finding Sparse Vectors in Codes, Subspaces, and Lattices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02636

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