320 likes | 456 Views
Algorithms vs. Circuit Lower Bounds. Igor Carboni Oliveira. Columbia University. CCI Meeting – Princeton, February 2014. What this talk is about. Sketch some proof techniques used in different contexts + point out some observations from [O’13] + mention some directions.
E N D
Algorithms vs. Circuit Lower Bounds Igor Carboni Oliveira Columbia University CCI Meeting – Princeton, February 2014
What this talk is about Sketch some proof techniques used in different contexts + point out some observations from [O’13] + mention some directions. “Explicit” function f (P, EXP, NP, …) not in nonuniform circuit class (ACC, TC0, NC1, …). Algorithm for hard computational problem
This talk: Compression Important: No assumptions on algorithm. Learning Satisfiability Non-uniform Circuit Lower Bounds Discuss techniques for deterministic, nondeterministic, randomizedalgorithms. • Why should you care? • only known approach to some CLBs. Nontrivial proofs for tautologies Derandomization Useful Properties(CLBs around NEXP)
Recall that: MAEXP not here![BFT’98] NEXP not here! [Williams’11] Contains NEXP? AC0 ⊆ ACC ⊆ TC0 ⊆ NC1 ⊆ AC1 ⊆ NC2 … ⊆ P/poly a few nontrivial (restricted) SAT algorithms[IPS13], [Williams’14], … Learning algorithm[LMN’89] SAT algorithm [Williams’11] P ⊆ NP ⊆ PH ⊆ PSPACE ⊆ EXP ⊆ NEXP, BPEXP ⊆ MAEXP Open. NEXP, BPEXP ⊆ TC0 (depth two)?
80’s: super fast SAT implies strong CLBs [Karp-Lipton-Meyer’80] + [Kannan’82] If P = NP then EXP requires circuits of exponential size. Proof sketch. 1) P = NP implies P = PH (easy). 2) P = PH implies EXP = EXPH (padding). 3) EXPH contains problems of exponential circuit complexity [Kannan’82]. Strong lower bound from a very strong assumption.
Nontrivial proofs for C-tautologies implies CLBs Roadmap (*approximate*) Circuit lower bound obtained from new algorithm. BFNW’93, NW’94, IW’97, … Hardness vs. Randomness Kabanets’01: Easy witness method Know even more about ACC! EXP ⊈ ACC or NTIME[nlogc n] ⊈ ACC. Williams’11: C-SAT Algorithms, NEXP ⊈ ACC. IKW’02: NEXP vs. P/poly Williams’10: “nontrivial” P/poly-SAT algorithms and lower bounds Tourlakis’01, FLvMV’05: Tight Cook-Levin reduction Yao’90, BT’94, AG’94:Structural results for ACC.
A closer look: Nontrivial proofs imply CLBs Proposition ([Williams’11], Informal).Let C be a circuit class. If there exists a proof system P such that every polynomial size tautology over n variables from C admits a proof that can be checked in time 2n/s(n), then NEXP ⊈ C. Deterministic SAT algorithms: particular case. *Find* proofs in time 2n/s(n). • Formally: • What is a circuit class? C = TC0 depth two? • C ≠ C (loss in the reduction).
Nontrivial proofs imply CLBs [Williams’10] C = C = P/poly. [Williams’11] C contains AC0, closed under composition. Proofs for tautologies in depth 2d + O(1) imply CLBs for depth d. ACC lower bound. Next step: lower bounds against classes such as depth-two TC0? [O’13] Relax assumptions on C + tighter connection + simpler proof: “Proofs for depth d + 2 yield circuit lower bounds against depth d”. NEXP ⊈ ACC o TH[Willliams’14]. Proof explores trick introduced in [O’13].
Def. A circuit class C is reasonable if: The constant function 0 is in C; C is (effectively) closed under complementation; Gates may have direct access to constant inputs 0/1; C⊆ P/poly. Examples: depth-d TC0, AC0, NC1, P/poly. Computational Problem: Equiv-AND-C Def.Given circuits f, g, h from C, check if: f (x) AND g(x) = h(x), for every x in {0,1}n. = Tautology? Def. Nontrivial proofs: can be checked by a uniform algorithm in time 2n/s(n). AND h f g Proposition [O’13]. If C is reasonable and polynomial size “EQUIV-AND-C tautologies” admit nontrivial proofs, then NEXP ⊈ C.
Proposition [O’13]. If C is reasonable and polynomial size EQUIV-AND-C tautologies admit nontrivial proofs, then NEXP ⊈ C. Proof sketch (following [Williams’10]). NTIME[2n] ⊈ NTIME[2n/n100] Assume: (1)NEXP ⊆ C (2) ∃nontrivial proofs. We contradict the Nondeterministic Time Hierarchy Theorem. Lemma 1 (Tourlakis’01, FLvMV’05: “tight Cook-Levin reduction”).Every language L ∈ NTIME[2n] can be reduced to (succinct)3SAT instances of size poly(n)2n. There is a polynomial time algorithm that, given x (instance of L), outputs a circuit Cxfrom P/poly over n + O(log n) inputs that: 1) Given an index i∈ {0,1}n + O(log n), Cx prints the i-th clause of formula Fx. 2)Fx is satisfiablex ∈ L. Fx : exponentially many clauses and variables.Succinct representation given by circuit Cx.
Recall: NEXP ⊆ C ⊆ P/poly (C is “reasonable”) Proposition [O’13]. If C is reasonable and polynomial size EQUIV-AND-C tautologies admit nontrivial proofs, then NEXP ⊈ C. Proof sketch. Lemma 2 (IKW’02, “hardness vs. randomness, easy witness, diagonalization”).If NEXP ⊆ P/poly then every NEXP-verifier V admits succinct witnesses:If V(x,w) = 1 for some w (of exponential length), then there is some w* such that: V(x,w*) = 1; w* is the truth table of some polynomial size circuit D. Fx is satisfiableFx(tt(D)) = 1,for some circuit D from P/poly over n + O(log n) variables. Lemma 2 implies that:
How to check whether Fx is satisfiable? Build a new circuit. Proposition [O’13]. If C is reasonable and polynomial size EQUIV-AND-C tautologies admit nontrivial proofs, then NEXP ⊈ C. Recall: Trying to decide L∈ NTIME[2^n] in less (nondeterministic) time. Given instance x, poly size circuit Cx prints i-th clause of 3-CNF Fx. (Nondeterministic) Algorithm for L:Guess circuit D that outputs assignment for Fx. Combines circuits Cx and D into a new circuit Ex over n + O(log n) variables such that: Ex : Given input i (index of a clause), use Cx to print this clause, and three copies of D to obtain values for variables in this clause. Ex outputs 1on input i∈ {0,1}n + O(log n)i-th clause is satisfied by “D” Therefore: x in LiffFxsatisfiableiff P/poly circuit D with Fx(tt(D)) = 1iffEx is a tautology
Proposition [O’13]. If C is reasonable and polynomial size EQUIV-AND-C tautologies admit nontrivial proofs, then NEXP ⊈ C. Proof sketch. x in L Ex is a tautology So far: poly time computation + guessing D (poly size string) = NP computation. Problem: How to prove that Ex is a tautology and put L in NTIME[<<2n]? Ex is a “P/poly-circuit”. [Williams’10] How to obtain an equivalent circuit from circuit class C? [Williams’11] [SW’12] [JMV’13] [SV’14] We describe next the method from [O’13].
Proposition [O’13]. If C is reasonable and polynomial size EQUIV-AND-C tautologies admit nontrivial proofs, then NEXP ⊈ C. Proof sketch. Equiv-AND-C IMPORTANT: function computed at this AND gate admits C-circuits of size nb. Fact. By assumption P ⊆ NEXP ⊆ C. Therefore any function f: {0,1}n to {0,1} computed by a “P/poly” circuit A of size na admits a circuit from C of size nb. AND Why?“Circuit evaluation” problem is in P (instances: <circuit, input>), and P ⊆ C. HardwireA’s description in new circuit from C computing “Circuit evaluation”. ? = Circuit Ex: NOT We can assume Ex uses AND (fan-in two), NOT gates only. f in C g in C h in C Every subcircuit of Ex has size na. Guess equivalent C-circuits of size nb. AND Use nontrivial EQUIV-AND_C proofs to check that these circuits are equivalent. NOT AND Obtain final C-circuit H equivalent to Ex.Finally, guess a proof that H is a tautology. AND NOT
Derandomization implies CLBs [KI’04] PIT = language of all arithmetic circuits computing zero polynomial over Z. PERM = problem of computing the permanent over integer matrices.Proposition. If PIT ∈NSUBEXP, then at least one of the following results hold: (1) NEXP⊈ P/poly; or (2) PERM ∉AlgP/poly. Follows fromdownward reducibility of Permanent! Let’s derive it from William’s theorem. Lemma [KI’04], [AvM’11]. There exists an efficient algorithm such that: Input: Arithmetic Circuit An.Output: Arithmetic Circuit Cm.Guarantee:An computes PERM of n x n matrices iffCm∈ PIT.
Proposition [KI’04] . If PIT ∈NSUBEXP, then at least one of the following results hold: (1) NEXP⊈ P/poly; or (2) PERM ∉AlgP/poly. EXP ⊈ P/poly Proof by contradiction. Assume PIT ∈NSUBEXP, NEXP ⊆ P/poly, PERM ∈AlgP/poly. [Williams’10] (contrapositive): If NEXP ⊆ P/polythen P/poly tautologies admit only trivial proofs. MetaMetaTheorem [O’13]:Proof shows that these meta results are in fact connected:Improvements in Williams’ framework propagate to [KI’04]. EXP ⊆ P/poly Subexponential size proofs for P/poly tautologies:Given poly size circuit C, is C a tautology? Problem in PH. By Toda’s Thm, reduces to P#P. By Valiant’s Thm, reduces to PERM. Since PERM ∈AlgP/poly, can guess a small arithmetic circuit A for PERM. Using previous Lemma, can check if A is correct by solving PIT (in NSUBEXP). Answer initial query (correctly!). Connection may even improve [KI’04] (work in progress)
Easier way to prove meta theorems of the form “algorithm implies circuit lower bounds”? Useful Properties [Williams’13]: “Characterizing CLBs around NEXP”.Def.Property of Boolean functions = subset of all Boolean functions.A property Π is useful against circuit class C[poly] if: ∀ k ∃ infinitely many n’s such that: 1) Π(fn) = 1 for at least one function fn: {0,1}n to {0,1}2) Π(gn) = 0 for all gn : {0,1}n to {0,1} computed by circuits from C of size nk.We say that Π is a Γ-Property if it can be decided in complexity class Γ (on inputs of size N = 2n). Π f C Π distinguishes a hard function f from all functions in C.
Useful Properties versus Circuit Lower Bounds A P-property is an algorithm! [Williams’13] “There exists a P-property useful against C iff NEXP ⊈ C”. If we insist that useful properties are defined only over truth tables, i.e., inputs of size N = 2n (following previous definition), then: What matters for this talk:Algorithm running in time polynomial in N (truth table size) that distinguishes hard function from functions in C[poly]: NEXP ⊈ C[poly]. Proposition 1. There exists a P/log N-property useful against C[poly]iffNEXP ⊈ C[poly]. What if we insist on properties computed without advice? [O’13] Proposition 2. a) If for every constant d there exists a P-property useful against C[nlogd n], then NE∩i.o.coNE⊈ C[nlog n].b) If NE∩coNE⊈ C[poly] then there is a P-property useful against C[poly]. Check [O’13] for more details.
Some direct consequences (I) Deterministic! [FK’06] “Learning yields circuit lower bounds”Proposition. Let C be any circuit class. If there exists a subexponential time algorithm that exact learns any concept from C using MQ and EQ queries, then EXPNP⊈ C. Equivalence Query oracle EQf: Given (the representation) of a function g:{0,1}n -> {0,1}, outputs “yes” if g ≡ f, or an input w such that g(w) ≠ f(w) otherwise. Membership Query oracle MQf: Given any x ∈ {0,1}n, returns f(x). Original Proof:Karp-Lipton Collapse, Properties of PERM, Relativized Time Hierarchy, + other ideas… All functions in C: learned in time << 2n.Random function:cannot be learned in time << 2n.Given truth table of size N = 2n, try to learn it. Efficient algorithm in N (can answer MQ and EQ). P-property useful against C. NEXP ⊈ C.
Some direct consequences (II) [KK’13, CKKSZ’13] “Approximate Compression yields circuit lower bounds”Problem: C[poly] circuit class. Given the truth-table of a function f in C (of size N=2n), output in time poly(N) a circuit of size <<2n/n that 0.51-approximates f.Proposition. If C admits efficient compression algorithms, then NEXP ⊈ C[poly]. Using the same argument, follows immediately from “Useful Properties”: random functions cannot be compressed (not even approximately). This approach is not always optimal! Exact learning leads to stronger lower bounds: elementary proof in [KKO’13]. Using [O’13], compression of quasi-poly size circuits from C yields even stronger CLBs!
CLBs from randomized (learning) algorithms Proposition [FK’06]. Let C ⊆ P/polybe any circuit class. If C is PAC-learnablewith membership queries under the uniform distribution in polynomial time, thenBPEXP ⊈ C[poly]. • Proposition [KKO’13]. If C is PAC learnablewith membership queries under • the uniform distribution in polynomial time, then either: • (1) PSPACE ⊈ C[poly]; or • (2) PSPACE ⊆ BPP. Can be combined with [Santhanam’07]to get lower bounds for BPP/1 [Volkovich’14] Removing (2) from statement impliesPSPACE ≠ BPP (unconditionally)
Proposition [KKO’13]. If C is PAC learnablewith membership queries under • the uniform distribution in polynomial time, then either: • PSPACE ⊈ C[poly]; or • PSPACE ⊆ BPP. Assume: C is learnable + PSPACE ⊆ C[poly]. Need to prove that PSPACE ⊆ BPP.Plan: Let f be a PSPACE-complete function in C[poly]. “Use efficient (randomized) learning algorithm to compute f in BPP”.
Problem 1: (PAC)Learner provides hypothesis that is correct on 99% of the inputs. BPP Algorithm: must be correct on every input (with high probability). Can correct hypothesis from learner! Idea:There is a PSPACE-complete problem f that is self-correctible [BF’90]: if hypothesis for f is correct on most inputs, then can compute f correctly on every input x with high probability. Problem 2:Learning algorithm asks MQs: given x, what is f(x)?Exactly what we are trying to compute! g = TQBF! Idea: There is a PSPACE-complete problemg that is downward self-reducible: Can compute g(x) in polynomial-time if can compute g on smaller instances. Can answer MQs if can compute g on smaller instances! Theorem [TV’07]. There exists a language L* such that: L* is PSPACE-complete. L* is self-correctible. L* is downward self-reducible.
Limitations of these approaches Which algorithms can lead to newCLBs? Narrow view…combine different techniques! Learning. black-box. No PRFs in circuit class C. Compression. Natural proofs barrier as well... Derandomization of PIT. Extensions.Strong algorithmic assumption? Satisfiability. Non black-box. Weak assumption.Partial progress on TC0. What about NC1? P/poly? Stronger CLBs? Hard to design algorithms…
Algorithms used in previous CLB proofs can be implemented! Designing nontrivial algorithms in the “CLB World”? CLB connection Complexity TheoryFramework Design of Algorithm A very simple example from learning theory. Membership Queries versus Random Examples. DNFs learnable in poly time under the uniform distribution with MQs [Jackson’94]. Can we learn DNFs efficiently using random examples? Open.
Designing nontrivial algorithms in the CLB World? In a circuit lower bound proof, everything that can be learned with MQs in poly time can be learned with random examples only. Proof sketch. CLB proof against C: can assume from the very beginning that PSPACE ⊆ C. • [KKO’13] CPAC-learnable with MQs in poly time then either: • PSPACE ⊈ C[poly] or PSPACE ⊆ BPP. Therefore learning C with MQs implies PSPACE ⊆ BPP. But then C can be learned with random examples only by finding a consistent hypothesis (“Occam’s Razor”).
Final Remarks • Use assumption? Can we design nontrivial algorithms using the extra power provided by our assumption (“no CLB”)? • Help from proof complexity? Easier than obtaining deterministic SAT algorithms? • Partial converse to Williams’ program? Is the existence of nontrivial proofs *necessary* for CLBs against C? Suppose NP ⊈ C, and that this proof can be formalized in some bounded arithmetic theory. Q. Is it the case that every C-tautology admits a nontrivial proof?