Document Open Access Logo

On the Hardness of Order Finding and Equivalence Testing for ROABPs

Authors C. Ramya , Pratik Shastri

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2025.49.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.71 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Algebraic complexity theory
Keywords
  • ROABP
  • Order Finding
  • Equivalence Testing
  • NP-hardness
  • Hardness of Approximation

Metrics

Abstract

The complexity of representing a polynomial by a Read-Once Oblivious Algebraic Branching Program (ROABP) is highly dependent on the chosen variable ordering. Bhargava et al. [Bhargava et al., 2024] prove that finding the optimal ordering is NP-hard, and provide some evidence (based on the Small Set Expansion hypothesis) that it is also hard to approximate the optimal ROABP width. In another work, Baraskar et al. [Baraskar et al., 2024] show that it is NP-hard to test whether a polynomial is in the GL_n orbit of a polynomial of sparsity at most s.
Building upon these works, we show the following results: first, we prove that approximating the minimum ROABP width up to any constant factor is NP-hard, when the input is presented as a circuit. This removes the reliance on stronger conjectures in the previous work [Bhargava et al., 2024]. Second, we show that testing if an input polynomial given in the sparse representation is in the affine GL_n orbit of a width-w ROABP is NP-hard. Furthermore, we show that over fields of characteristic 0, the problem is NP-hard even when the input polynomial is homogeneous. This provides the first NP-hardness results for membership testing for a dense subclass of polynomial sized algebraic branching programs (VBP). Finally, we locate the source of hardness for the order finding problem at the lowest possible non-trivial degree, proving that the problem is NP-hard even for quadratic forms.

Cite As Get BibTex

C. Ramya and Pratik Shastri. On the Hardness of Order Finding and Equivalence Testing for ROABPs. In 45th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2025). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 360, pp. 49:1-49:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2025) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2025.49

Author Details

C. Ramya
  • The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India
Pratik Shastri
  • The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India

Funding

  • Ramya, C.: Research supported by INSPIRE Faculty Fellowship of DST.

References

  1. Christoph Ambühl, Monaldo Mastrolilli, and Ola Svensson. Inapproximability results for maximum edge biclique, minimum linear arrangement, and sparsest cut. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(2):567-596, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/080729256.
  2. Per Austrin, Toniann Pitassi, and Yu Wu. Inapproximability of treewidth, one-shot pebbling, and related layout problems. In Anupam Gupta, Klaus Jansen, José Rolim, and Rocco Servedio, editors, Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, pages 13-24, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32512-0_2.
  3. O. Baraskar, A. Dewan, C. Saha, and P. Sinha. NP-hardness of testing equivalence to sparse polynomials and to constant-support polynomials. In Proceedings of the 51st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), 2024. Google Scholar
  4. Omkar Baraskar, Agrim Dewan, and Chandan Saha. Testing equivalence to design polynomials. In Olaf Beyersdorff, Mamadou Moustapha Kanté, Orna Kupferman, and Daniel Lokshtanov, editors, 41st International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 2024, March 12-14, 2024, Clermont-Ferrand, France, volume 289 of LIPIcs, pages 9:1-9:22. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.STACS.2024.9.
  5. V. Bhargava, P. Dutta, S. Ghosh, and A. Tengse. The complexity of order-finding for roabps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18981, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18981.
  6. Vishwas Bhargava and Sumanta Ghosh. Improved hitting set for orbit of roabps. computational complexity, 31(2):15, October 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00037-022-00230-9.
  7. J. Díaz, J. Petit, and M. Serna. A survey of graph layout problems. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(3):313-356, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/568522.568523.
  8. Nikhil Gupta, Chandan Saha, and Bhargav Thankey. Equivalence Test for Read-Once Arithmetic Formulas, pages 4205-4272. SIAM, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch162.
  9. Dori Medini and Amir Shpilka. Hitting sets and reconstruction for dense orbits in vp_eand ΣΠΣ circuits. In Valentine Kabanets, editor, 36th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC 2021, July 20-23, 2021, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Virtual Conference), volume 200 of LIPIcs, pages 19:1-19:27. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.CCC.2021.19.
  10. N. Nisan. Lower bounds for non-commutative computation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 410-418, 1991. Google Scholar
  11. S. Oum. Rank-width: Algorithmic and structural results. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 231:15-24, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DAM.2016.08.006.
  12. Chandan Saha and Bhargav Thankey. Hitting sets for orbits of circuit classes and polynomial families. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory, 16(3), September 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3665800.
Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact