1 / 48

Comparing Notions of Full Derandomization

Comparing Notions of Full Derandomization. Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute With thanks to Dieter van Melkebeek. Derandomization. Impagliazzo-Wigderson ’97 If E requires 2 (n) size circuits then P = BPP. Andreev-Clementi-Rolim ’98

julio
Download Presentation

Comparing Notions of Full Derandomization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing Notions ofFull Derandomization Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute With thanks to Dieter van Melkebeek

  2. Derandomization • Impagliazzo-Wigderson ’97 • If E requires 2(n) size circuitsthen P = BPP. • Andreev-Clementi-Rolim ’98 • If efficient hitting set generators exist then P = BPP.

  3. Derandomization • E requires 2(n) size circuits. • Efficient hitting set generators exist. • These assumptions are equivalent. • Are they equivalent to P = BPP? • How about Promise-BPP is easy? • Main Result • There exist a relativized world where Promise-BPP is easy but E has small circuits.

  4. Derandomization Notions • P = NP. • Pseudorandom generators exist. • Circuit approximation is easy. • P = BPP. • P = RP. • P = ZPP.

  5. Hypothesis II • The following are equivalent • Efficient Pseudorandom generators. • Efficient Hitting Set generators. • E requires 2(n) size circuits.

  6. Hypothesis II • The following are equivalent • Efficient Pseudorandom generators. • Efficient Hitting Set generators. • E requires 2(n) size circuits. • Pseudorandom Generator • A function G:k log nn s.t. for all circuits C of size n,

  7. Hypothesis II • The following are equivalent • Efficient Pseudorandom generators. • Efficient Hitting Set generators. • E requires 2(n) size circuits. • Hitting Set Generator • H maps 1n to a polynomial-list of strings such that if C is size n and accepts at least half of its inputs then one of those inputs is in H(1n).

  8. Proofs of Equivalences • Efficient Pseudorandom Generators imply Efficient Hitting Set Generators. • Range of pseudorandom generator is a hitting set.

  9. Proofs of Equivalence • Hitting set generators imply E requires 2(n) size circuits [ISW,ACR] • Let k(n) = 1+log of the size of the hitting set generated by H(1n). • Let S be the set of prefixes of elements of H(1n) of size k(n). • S is in E. If S had 2o(k(n)) size circuits we could build C of size n that avoids strings whose prefixes are in S.

  10. Proofs of Equivalence • E requires 2(n) size circuits implies efficient pseudorandom generators exist. • Impagliazzo-Wigderson ‘97

  11. P = NP and Hypothesis II • P = NP  Hitting Set Generators • Probabilistic methods guarantee existence of hitting sets. • Minimum generator in polynomial-time hierarchy. • Relative to a random oracle, P  NP and Pseudorandom generators exist.

  12. Hypothesis III • The following are equivalent • Circuit Approximation is Easy • Promise-BPP is easy • Promise-RP is easy • Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

  13. Hypothesis III • The following are equivalent • Circuit Approximation is Easy • Given C and 1n can compute in poly(|c|,n) time, a value v within 1/n of accepting probability of C. • Promise-BPP is easy • Promise-RP is easy • Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

  14. Hypothesis III • The following are equivalent • Circuit Approximation is Easy • Promise-BPP is easy • For Probabilistic Polytime M there is L in P, • If Pr(M(x) accepts)>2/3 then x in L. • If Pr(M(x) accepts)<1/3 then x not in L. • Promise-RP is easy • Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

  15. Hypothesis III • The following are equivalent • Circuit Approximation is Easy • Promise-BPP is easy • Promise-RP is easy • For Probabilistic Polytime M there is L in P, • If Pr(M(x) accepts)>1/2 then x in L. • If Pr(M(x) accepts)= 0 then x not in L. • Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

  16. Hypothesis III • The following are equivalent • Circuit Approximation is Easy • Promise-BPP is easy • Promise-RP is easy • Efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. • Given C accepting at least half of inputs, can in polytime find an accepting input.

  17. Proofs of Equivalences • Circuit Approximation impliesfinding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs.

  18. Proofs of Equivalences • Circuit Approximation impliesfinding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 1 Inputs of C beginning with 0

  19. Proofs of Equivalences • Circuit Approximation impliesfinding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 1 Inputs of C beginning with 0 Approximate the size of each one within factor of 1/n2 and take larger.

  20. Proofs of Equivalences • Circuit Approximation impliesfinding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 1

  21. Proofs of Equivalences • Circuit Approximation impliesfinding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 11 Inputs of C beginning with 10

  22. Proofs of Equivalences • Circuit Approximation impliesfinding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. Inputs of C beginning with 11 Inputs of C beginning with 10 Repeat …

  23. Proofs of Equivalences • Finding accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs implies Promise-RP is easy. • Convert Promise-RP machine M to a circuit whose inputs are random coins to M.

  24. Proofs of Equivalences • Promise RP is easy impliesPromise BPP is easy. • Lautemann’s 1983 proof thatBPP is in 2 actually givesPromise-BPP in Promise-RPPromise-RP.

  25. Proofs of Equivalences • Promise BPP is easy impliesCircuit Approximation is easy • Consider probabilistic machine M that chooses m random inputs to C and accepts if j accepts. • M will accept w.h.p if accepting probability of C is > j/m + a little. • M will reject w.h.p if accepting probability of C is < j/m – a little.

  26. The Other Hypotheses • Promise-BPP is easy implies • P = BPP implies • P = RP implies • P = ZPP.

  27. The Other Hypotheses • Promise-BPP is easy implies • P = BPP implies • P = RP implies • P = ZPP. • Impagliazzo-Naor ’88 • Generic Oracles make P = BPP butPromise-BPP is not easy.

  28. The Other Hypotheses • Promise-BPP is easy implies • P = BPP implies • P = RP implies • P = ZPP. • Muchnik and Vereschagin ’96 • Relativized world whereP = RP  BPP

  29. The Other Hypotheses • Promise-BPP is easy implies • P = BPP implies • P = RP implies • P = ZPP. • Muchnik and Vereschagin ’96 • Relativized world whereP = ZPP  RP

  30. All of the Hypotheses • Baker-Gill-Solovay ’75 • Oracle where P = NP andall hypotheses are true. • Heller ’84 and Kurtz ’85 • Oracle where ZPP = EXP andall hypotheses fail in strong way.

  31. Relationship of II and III • Pseudorandom generators imply circuit approximation. • Andreev-Clementi-Rolim ’98 • Hitting set generators implyPromise-BPP is easy. • Kabanets and Cai ’00 • Hypotheses equivalent if one can compute minimum circuit size.

  32. Our Result • There exists a relativized world where E has linear-size circuits and we can efficiently find accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. • Corollary • There exists relativized world where Hypothesis II is false and III is true.

  33. Relativization • Result relative to set A means all machines can query A at unit cost. • All results mentioned in this talk hold relative to all sets A. • Any proof that Hypothesis II and III are equivalent would require different techniques.

  34. Differences of II and III • 1-sided vs. 2-sided error nonissue. • Hypothesis II • Generators must work against all circuits. • Hypothesis III • Given circuit can find accepting input.

  35. Oracle Construction Issues • Idea: Use circuit to point to its own accepting input. • Cannot encode every circuit orP = NP and Hypothesis II is true. • Just want to encode accepting inputs of circuits that accept many inputs. • We do not know as we construct which circuits to encode.

  36. Oracle Construction • Let L(MA) be complete for E. • Stage n: • Pick random yn of length 5n for all n. • Promise x in L(MA)  <x,yn> in A. • This gives us E has linear size circuits with advice yn.

  37. Stage n continued • For all circuits C and current A • If CA accepts some input then encode that input at <yn,C,…> • If CA accepts no input then encode at <yn,C,…> all strings of A queried on by CA(x) on at least 1/(2|c|) of inputs x.

  38. Why this works • We have y1 hardwired. • If we know yk and CA accepts at least half the inputs we will either • Find an x such that CA(x) accepts. • Find a yj for some j > k. • We repeat until we find an x since C cannot query yj for j > |C|.

  39. Relativization • All of the equivalences and implications discussed relativize, i.e., hold if all machines involved have access to the same oracle. • Most combinatorial and algebraic techniques in complexity theory relativize.

  40. Hard Sets Implies PRGs • Klivans-van Melkebeek ‘99 • If f is computable in exponential time relative to A and no subexponential size circuit family with B gates can compute f then there exists an efficient pseudo-random generator computable with an oracle for A secure against circuits with oracle gates for B.

  41. Slight Derandomization • Babai-Fortnow-Nisan-Wigderson • If BPP is not infinitely often in subexponential time then EXP = MA.

  42. Slight Derandomization • Babai-Fortnow-Nisan-Wigderson • If BPP is not infinitely often in subexponential time then EXP has polynomial-size circuits. • Babai-Fortnow-Lund, Nisan • If EXP has polynomial-size circuits then EXP = MA.

  43. Collapse of NEXP • Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson • If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits then NEXP = MA.

  44. Collapse of NEXP • Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson • If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits then NEXP = EXP.

  45. Collapse of NEXP • Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson • If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits and EXP = AM then NEXP = EXP.

  46. Collapse of NEXP • Impagliazzo-Kabanets-Wigderson • If NEXP has polynomial-size circuits and EXP = AM then NEXP = EXP. • Babai-Fortnow-Lund, Nisan • If EXP has polynomial-size circuits then EXP = MA  AM.

  47. Limited Derandomization • Impagliazzo-Wigderson ’98 • If EXP  BPP then BPP is infinitely often heuristically in subexponential time. • Open if this relativizes. • Uses special random-self-reducible and downward reducible properties of the permanent. • Same properties used in first interactive proofs of the permanent.

  48. Future Directions • How does Promise-ZPP is easy fit in? • Connections to other hypotheses? • If for every n there is an x with high nj time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity and low nk time bounded Kolmogorov complexity then efficient pseudorandom generators exist.

More Related