Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
The Exponential-Time Hypothesis ( \(\mathtt {ETH} \) ) is a strengthening of the \(\mathcal {P} \ne \mathcal {NP} \) conjecture, stating that \(3\text{-}\mathtt {SAT} \) on n variables cannot be solved in (uniform) time 2 ϵ · n , for some ϵ > 0. In recent years, analogous hypotheses that are “exponentially-strong” forms of other classical complexity conjectures (such as \(\mathcal {NP}\nsubseteq \mathcal {BPP} \) or \(co\mathcal {NP}\nsubseteq \mathcal {NP} \) ) have also been introduced, and have become widely influential. In this work, we focus on the interaction of exponential-time hypotheses with the fundamental and closely-related questions of derandomization and circuit lower bounds . We show that even relatively-mild variants of exponential-time hypotheses have far-reaching implications to derandomization, circuit lower bounds, and the connections between the two. Specifically, we prove that: (1) The Randomized Exponential-Time Hypothesis ( \(\mathsf {rETH} \) ) implies that \(\mathcal {BPP} \) can be simulated on “average-case” in deterministic (nearly-)polynomial-time (i.e., in time \(2^{\tilde{O}(\log (n))}=n^{\mathrm{loglog}(n)^{O(1)}} \) ). The derandomization relies on a conditional construction of a pseudorandom generator with near-exponential stretch (i.e., with seed length \(\tilde{O}(\log (n)) \) ); this significantly improves the state-of-the-art in uniform “hardness-to-randomness” results, which previously only yielded pseudorandom generators with sub-exponential stretch from such hypotheses. (2) The Non-Deterministic Exponential-Time Hypothesis ( \(\mathsf {NETH} \) ) implies that derandomization of \(\mathcal {BPP} \) is completely equivalent to circuit lower bounds against \(\mathcal {E} \) , and in particular that pseudorandom generators are necessary for derandomization. In fact, we show that the foregoing equivalence follows from a very weak version of \(\mathsf {NETH} \) , and we also show that this very weak version is necessary to prove a slightly stronger conclusion that we deduce from it. Lastly, we show that disproving certain exponential-time hypotheses requires proving breakthrough circuit lower bounds. In particular, if \(\mathtt {CircuitSAT} \) for circuits over n bits of size poly( n ) can be solved by probabilistic algorithms in time 2 n /polylog( n ) , then \(\mathcal {BPE} \) does not have circuits of quasilinear size.more » « less
-
Abstract In a Merlin–Arthur proof system, the proof verifier (Arthur) accepts valid proofs (from Merlin) with probability 1, and rejects invalid proofs with probability arbitrarily close to 1. The running time of such a system is defined to be the length of Merlin’s proof plus the running time of Arthur. We provide new Merlin–Arthur proof systems for some key problems in fine-grained complexity. In several cases our proof systems have optimal running time. Our main results include:
Certifying that a list of
n integers has no 3-SUM solution can be done in Merlin–Arthur time . Previously, Carmosino et al. [ITCS 2016] showed that the problem has a nondeterministic algorithm running in$$\tilde{O}(n)$$ time (that is, there is a proof system with proofs of length$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$ and a deterministic verifier running in$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$ time).$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$ Counting the number of
k -cliques with total edge weight equal to zero in ann -node graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time (where$${\tilde{O}}(n^{\lceil k/2\rceil })$$ ). For odd$$k\ge 3$$ k , this bound can be further improved for sparse graphs: for example, counting the number of zero-weight triangles in anm -edge graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time . Previous Merlin–Arthur protocols by Williams [CCC’16] and Björklund and Kaski [PODC’16] could only count$${\tilde{O}}(m)$$ k -cliques in unweighted graphs, and had worse running times for smallk .Computing the All-Pairs Shortest Distances matrix for an
n -node graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time . Note this is optimal, as the matrix can have$$\tilde{O}(n^2)$$ nonzero entries in general. Previously, Carmosino et al. [ITCS 2016] showed that this problem has an$$\Omega (n^2)$$ nondeterministic time algorithm.$$\tilde{O}(n^{2.94})$$ Certifying that an
n -variablek -CNF is unsatisfiable can be done in Merlin–Arthur time . We also observe an algebrization barrier for the previous$$2^{n/2 - n/O(k)}$$ -time Merlin–Arthur protocol of R. Williams [CCC’16] for$$2^{n/2}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$ SAT: in particular, his protocol algebrizes, and we observe there is no algebrizing protocol for$$\#$$ k -UNSAT running in time. Therefore we have to exploit non-algebrizing properties to obtain our new protocol.$$2^{n/2}/n^{\omega (1)}$$ Certifying a Quantified Boolean Formula is true can be done in Merlin–Arthur time
. Previously, the only nontrivial result known along these lines was an Arthur–Merlin–Arthur protocol (where Merlin’s proof depends on some of Arthur’s coins) running in$$2^{4n/5}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$ time.$$2^{2n/3}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$ n integers can be done in Merlin–Arthur time , improving on the previous best protocol by Nederlof [IPL 2017] which took$$2^{n/3}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$ time.$$2^{0.49991n}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$ -
Etessami, Kousha ; Feige, Uriel ; Puppis, Gabriele (Ed.)We give the first pseudorandom generators with sub-linear seed length for the following variants of read-once branching programs (roBPs): 1) First, we show there is an explicit PRG of seed length O(log²(n/ε)log(n)) fooling unbounded-width unordered permutation branching programs with a single accept state, where n is the length of the program. Previously, [Lee-Pyne-Vadhan RANDOM 2022] gave a PRG with seed length Ω(n) for this class. For the ordered case, [Hoza-Pyne-Vadhan ITCS 2021] gave a PRG with seed length Õ(log n ⋅ log 1/ε). 2) Second, we show there is an explicit PRG fooling unbounded-width unordered regular branching programs with a single accept state with seed length Õ(√{n ⋅ log 1/ε} log 1/ε). Previously, no non-trivial PRG (with seed length less than n) was known for this class (even in the ordered setting). For the ordered case, [Bogdanov-Hoza-Prakriya-Pyne CCC 2022] gave an HSG with seed length Õ(log n ⋅ log 1/ε). 3) Third, we show there is an explicit PRG fooling width w adaptive branching programs with seed length O(log n ⋅ log² (nw/ε)). Here, the branching program can choose an input bit to read depending on its current state, while it is guaranteed that on any input x ∈ {0,1}ⁿ, the branching program reads each input bit exactly once. Previously, no PRG with a non-trivial seed length is known for this class. We remark that there are some functions computable by constant-width adaptive branching programs but not by sub-exponential-width unordered branching programs. In terms of techniques, we indeed show that the Forbes-Kelley PRG (with the right parameters) from [Forbes-Kelley FOCS 2018] already fools all variants of roBPs above. Our proof adds several new ideas to the original analysis of Forbes-Kelly, and we believe it further demonstrates the versatility of the Forbes-Kelley PRG.more » « less