1 / 53

Hardness of Reconstructing Multivariate Polynomials.

Hardness of Reconstructing Multivariate Polynomials. Parikshit Gopalan U. Washington Subhash Khot NYU/Gatech Rishi Saket Gatech/NYU. Curve Fitting. Problem: Given data points, find a low degree polynomial that fits best. Easy if there is a perfect fit. Well studied problem ….

zeph-jensen
Download Presentation

Hardness of Reconstructing Multivariate Polynomials.

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. Hardness of Reconstructing Multivariate Polynomials. Parikshit Gopalan U. Washington Subhash Khot NYU/Gatech Rishi Saket Gatech/NYU

  2. Curve Fitting Problem:Given data points, find a low degree polynomial that fits best. Easy if there is a perfect fit. Well studied problem …

  3. Curve Fitting through the ages

  4. Curve Fitting through the ages

  5. Curve Fitting through the ages

  6. !

  7. Statistics: Least Squares

  8. Coding Theory Computational Learning Polynomial Reconstruction PCPs Cryptography Pseudorandom-ness

  9. The Reconstruction Problem • Input: Degree d. • Output: A degree d polynomial that best fits the data. • In this talk: Finite fields, Hamming distance.

  10. The Reconstruction Problem • Input: Degree d, set S, values f(x) for x 2 S. • Output: A degree d polynomial that best fits the data. • Parameters that matter: • Degree d, Field F. • Set S. • How good is the best fit? (error-rate )

  11. Algorithms for Reconstruction • Univariate Case [Sudan, Guruswami-Sudan]: • Multivariate Case [Goldreich-Levin, Goldreich-Rubinfeld-Sudan, Arora-Sudan, Sudan-Trevisan-Vadhan]: • Can tolerate very high error rate . • Are these algorithms optimal?

  12. Hardness Results: Univariate Case • Degree d polynomials, n points in F. • [Guruswami-Vardy]:NP-hard to tell if some degree d poly. has d +2 agreements. • [Guruswami-Sudan]: Can tell if some degree d poly. has (nd)0.5 agreement.

  13. Hardness Results: Multivariate Case • Linear polynomialsoverF2 • [Hastad]:NP-hard to tell if • Some linear poly. satisfies 1-  fraction of points. • Every linear poly. satisfies less than 0.5 +  fraction of points. • Extends to any F and d =1. • Implies something for d < F. • d ¸ 2 over F2: Nothing known.

  14. Our Results • Over F2 for any d, NP-hard to tell whether • Some linear polynomial satisfies 1-  fraction of points. • Every degree d polynomial satisfies at most 1 -2-d +  fraction of points. • SZ Lemma: For a degree d poly P  0 over F2, • Prx[ P(x)  0] ¸ 2-d.

  15. Our Results • Over Fq for any d, NP-hard to tell whether • Some linear polynomial satisfies 1-  fraction of points. • Every degree d polynomial satisfies at most c(d,q)+  fraction of points. • c(d,q): Schwartz-Zippel for polynomials of total degree d over Fq.

  16. Overview of Reduction • Reducing from Label-Cover. • Dictatorship Testing. • Consistency Testing. • Putting it all together.

  17. Label Cover 1 Graph: G(V,E), |V| =n. Labels: [k] Edges:pe ½ [k] £ [k] Goal: Find a labeling satisfying all edges. 2 n 3 • Thm [PCP + Raz]: It is NP-hard to tell if • Some labeling satisfies all edges. • Every labeling satisfies · frac. of edges.

  18. The Reduction Henceforth d =2, field = F2. X11 X12 … X1k Xn1 Xn2 … Xnk X21 X22 … X2k X31 X32 … X3k Constraints: Points in {0,1}nk+ values. Yes Case: Some L satisfies most constraints. No Case: No Q satisfies many constraints.

  19. X11X12 … X1k Xn1 Xn2 … Xnk X21 X22 … X2k X31 X32 … X3k The Reduction • Ifl(v)is a good labelling, thenL = v Xvl(v)will satisfy most points.

  20. The Reduction X11 X12 … X1k Xn1 Xn2 … Xnk X21X22 … X2k X31 X32 … X3k • Ifl(v)is a good labelling, thenL =v Xvl(v)will satisfy most points. • Any Q that does ¾ +  gives a labelling satisfying ’fraction of edges.

  21. Overview of Reduction 3, 71, 99 • Dictatorship: • Q1 = Q(X11,…,X1k,0,..,0). • Q1looks like a Dictator X1j. • Will settle for small list.  17, 45 Constant independent of k. • Consistency: • Some pair of labels in the list satisfy .

  22. Overview of Reduction 3, 71, 99 • Dictatorship: • Q1 = Q(X11,…,X1k,0,..,0). • Q1looks like a Dictator X1j. • Will settle for small list. • Can enforce this for  frac. of vertices.  17, 45 • Consistency: • Some pair of labels in the list satisfy . • Can enforce this for all edges.

  23. Overview of Reduction 3, 71, 99  17, 45 • If Q does ¾ +  • Small list for  frac. of vertices. • Consistency for all edges. • Assign random labels from list. • Satisfies constant fraction of edges.

  24. Overview of Reduction • Dictatorship Testing. • Consistency Testing. • Putting it all together.

  25. Overview of Reduction • Dictatorship Testing. • Consistency Testing. • Putting it all together.

  26. Dictatorship Testing for low-degree Polynomials. • Input:Q(X1,…,Xk) of degree 2. • Goal: Design a test s.t • Every dictatorship Xi passes w.p close to 1. • If Q does better than ¾, it is close to a dictatorship. • Test: Pick a random point x 2 {0,1}k. • Check if Q(x) = y. • Mini reconstruction problem! Small List

  27. Dictatorship Testing for low-degree Polynomials. All polys. Quadratic polys. Dictatorships

  28. Dictatorship Testing [Hastad, Bourgain, MOO] Hard to do with just 2 queries. All polys. Dictatorships

  29. Dictatorship Testing for low-degree Polynomials. • Poly. is of low degree. • Allowed one query (!) Quadratic polys. Dictatorships

  30. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. Each i =1 independently. w.p  • Uniform dist: Quadratic polys. are 3:1 balanced. • -biased: Dictatorships are highly skewed. • Is there a converse? (1,…,1) (0,…,0)

  31. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. • Xipasses w.p1- . • XiXjpasses w.p 1- 2. • X1(X1 + … + Xk) + X2(X1 + …)passes w.p1 - 2

  32. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. 2 Define G(Q) to be the graph of Q. Q = X1X2 + X2X3, G(Q) = 3 1 Thm:If Q passes w.p ¾ + , then G(Q) has no large matchings.

  33. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. • Thm:If Q passes w.p ¾ + , then G(Q) has no large matchings. 1. Large matching: Independent monomials. 2. Only small matchings: Small vertex cover. X1L1 + X2L2

  34. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. • Thm:If Q does better than ¾, then G(Q) has no large matchings. Xi = 0 w.p 1- 2 Xi2R {0,1} Q Q’ c =? 0 • If G(Q) has a large matching, then Q’  0 w.h.p. • If Q’  0, then c =1 w.p ¸ ¼ (SZ lemma). • If Q does well, G(Q) has no large matchings.

  35. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. • Thm:If Q does better than ¾, then G(Q) has no large matchings. If G(Q) has a large matching, then Q’  0 w.h.p. • Each edge survives w.p 42. • Events for each matching edge are independent.

  36. Dictatorship Test • Dictatorship Test: • Pick 2 {0,1}k from the -biased distribution. • Check if Q() = 0. 2 Define G(Q) to be the graph of Q. Q = X1X2 + X2X3, G(Q) = 3 1 Thm:If Q passes w.p ¾ + , then G(Q) has no large matchings. Small List:Vertex set of a maximal matching.

  37. Overview of Reduction 3, 71, 99 • Dictatorship: • Assign a small list to a vertex.  17, 45 • Consistency: • Some pair of labels in the list satisfy .

  38. Overview of Reduction • Dictatorship Testing. • Consistency Testing. • Putting it all together.

  39. Consistency Testing l(x) = l(y)

  40. Consistency Testing l(x) = l(y) X1 X2 … Xk Y1 Y2 … Yk Given Q(X1,…,Xk,Y1,…,Yk) s.t Q(Xi) and Q(Yj) both pass the dict. Test. Want Q(X1,..,Xk,0,…,0) = Q(0,…,0,Y1,…,Yk). Test: Q(r,0) = Q(0,r) for r 2R {0,1}k. • Two queries!

  41. H Consistency via Folding l(x) = l(y) X1 X2 … Xk Y1 Y2 … Yk • Yes case:Q = Xi + Yi for some i. • All of them vanish over H = (r,r). • Constant on each coset of H. • Enforce this on Q even in theNocase.

  42. H Consistency via Folding Def: Q is folded over subspace H µ {0,1}k if Q is constant on every coset of H. Examples: Linear polys., juntas. Thm:Q is folded over H iff for some nice basis (1,…,t,1,...,k-t), Q = R(1,…,t) is a t-junta for t = k – dim(H) In the nice basis (1,…,t,1,...,k-t) is: coset of H, js: position in coset.

  43. H Template for Folding • Want Q folded over a subspace H. • Compute nice basis(i, j). • Ask forR(1,…,t). • To test ifQ(x) = y • Letx = (,); testR() = y. • For analysis: RewriteR()asQ(x). • Now Q is folded. {0,1}n/H

  44. Consistency via Folding l(x) = l(y) Fold overH = (r,r)forr 2 {0,1}k. Polys. folded over H can be written as: Q(X1,…,Xk,Y1,…,Yk) = R(X1 +Y1, …, Xk + Yk) Gives Q(X1,…,Xk) = Q(Y1,…,Yk). List of Xis: Vertex set of maximal matching. Every two maximal matchings intersect.

  45. Summary of Reduction • Each constraint givesH½ {0,1}nk. • Fold over the span of allH. • Run Dict. test on every vertex. • No explicit consistency tests. • If Q passes w.p ¾ + , • fraction of vertices do well on Dict. test. • Consistency for all edges by folding.

  46. Overview of Reduction • Dictatorship Testing. • Consistency Testing. • Putting it all together.

  47. Projections … X11X12 … X1k Xn1 Xn2 … Xnk X21 X22 … X2k X31 X32 … X3k • Can handle equality, permutations. • Need perfect completeness: no UGC. • Have to deal with $#@%! projections.

  48. Projections … Decoding is a vertex cover for G(Qi). Need to show that every two vertex covers intersect.

  49. Projections … Do every two vertex covers of G intersect? No:

  50. Projections … Do every two vertex covers of G intersect? No: … but in any three VCs, some pair intersects.

More Related