Document Open Access Logo

A ZPP^NP[1] Lifting Theorem

Author Thomas Watson



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.STACS.2019.59.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.59 MB
  • 16 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Thomas Watson
  • University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

Acknowledgements

I thank Mika Göös and Toniann Pitassi for discussions, and anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Thomas Watson. A ZPP^NP[1] Lifting Theorem. In 36th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2019). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 126, pp. 59:1-59:16, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2019.59

Abstract

The complexity class ZPP^{NP[1]} (corresponding to zero-error randomized algorithms with access to one NP oracle query) is known to have a number of curious properties. We further explore this class in the settings of time complexity, query complexity, and communication complexity. - For starters, we provide a new characterization: ZPP^{NP[1]} equals the restriction of BPP^{NP[1]} where the algorithm is only allowed to err when it forgoes the opportunity to make an NP oracle query. - Using the above characterization, we prove a query-to-communication lifting theorem, which translates any ZPP^{NP[1]} decision tree lower bound for a function f into a ZPP^{NP[1]} communication lower bound for a two-party version of f. - As an application, we use the above lifting theorem to prove that the ZPP^{NP[1]} communication lower bound technique introduced by Göös, Pitassi, and Watson (ICALP 2016) is not tight. We also provide a "primal" characterization of this lower bound technique as a complexity class.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Computational complexity and cryptography
Keywords
  • Query complexity
  • communication complexity
  • lifting

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Scott Aaronson and Andris Ambainis. Forrelation: A Problem That Optimally Separates Quantum from Classical Computing. In Proceedings of the 47th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 307-316. ACM, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2746539.2746547.
  2. Scott Aaronson, Shalev Ben-David, and Robin Kothari. Separations in Query Complexity Using Cheat Sheets. In Proceedings of the 48th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 863-876. ACM, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2897518.2897644.
  3. Andris Ambainis, Martins Kokainis, and Robin Kothari. Nearly Optimal Separations Between Communication (Or Query) Complexity And Partitions. In Proceedings of the 31st Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), pages 4:1-4:14. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2016.4.
  4. Anurag Anshu, Aleksandrs Belovs, Shalev Ben-David, Mika Göös, Rahul Jain, Robin Kothari, Troy Lee, and Miklos Santha. Separations in Communication Complexity Using Cheat Sheets And Information Complexity. In Proceedings of the 57th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 555-564. IEEE, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.66.
  5. Yakov Babichenko and Aviad Rubinstein. Communication Complexity of Approximate Nash Equilibria. In Proceedings of the 49th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 878-889. ACM, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055407.
  6. Shalev Ben-David, Pooya Hatami, and Avishay Tal. Low-Sensitivity Functions from Unambiguous Certificates. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), pages 28:1-28:23. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.28.
  7. Maria Luisa Bonet, Juan Luis Esteban, Nicola Galesi, and Jan Johannsen. On the Relative Complexity of Resolution Refinements and Cutting Planes Proof Systems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 30(5):1462-1484, 2000. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0097539799352474.
  8. Adam Bouland, Lijie Chen, Dhiraj Holden, Justin Thaler, and Prashant Vasudevan. On The Power of Statistical Zero Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 58th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 708-719. IEEE, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2017.71.
  9. Harry Buhrman and Ronald de Wolf. Complexity Measures and Decision Tree Complexity: A Survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21-43, 2002. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00144-X.
  10. Harry Buhrman, Nikolai Vereshchagin, and Ronald de Wolf. On Computation and Communication with Small Bias. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 24-32. IEEE, 2007. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2007.18.
  11. Jin-Yi Cai and Venkatesan Chakaravarthy. On Zero Error Algorithms Having Oracle Access to One Query. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 11(2):189-202, 2006. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10878-006-7130-0.
  12. Siu On Chan, James Lee, Prasad Raghavendra, and David Steurer. Approximate Constraint Satisfaction Requires Large LP Relaxations. Journal of the ACM, 63(4):34:1-34:22, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2811255.
  13. Richard Chang and Suresh Purini. Amplifying ZPP^SAT[1] and the Two Queries Problem. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 41-52. IEEE, 2008. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2008.32.
  14. Susanna de Rezende, Jakob Nordström, and Marc Vinyals. How Limited Interaction Hinders Real Communication (and What It Means for Proof and Circuit Complexity). In Proceedings of the 57th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 295-304. IEEE, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.40.
  15. Mika Göös. Lower Bounds for Clique vs. Independent Set. In Proceedings of the 56th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1066-1076. IEEE, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2015.69.
  16. Mika Göös, T.S. Jayram, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Randomized Communication vs. Partition Number. In Proceedings of the 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 52:1-52:15. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.52.
  17. Mika Göös, Pritish Kamath, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Query-to-Communication Lifting for P^NP. In Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), pages 12:1-12:16. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2017.12.
  18. Mika Göös, Shachar Lovett, Raghu Meka, Thomas Watson, and David Zuckerman. Rectangles Are Nonnegative Juntas. SIAM Journal on Computing, 45(5):1835-1869, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/15M103145X.
  19. Mika Göös and Toniann Pitassi. Communication Lower Bounds via Critical Block Sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 46th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 847-856. ACM, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2591796.2591838.
  20. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Deterministic Communication vs. Partition Number. In Proceedings of the 56th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1077-1088. IEEE, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2015.70.
  21. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. The Landscape of Communication Complexity Classes. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 86:1-86:15. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.86.
  22. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Query-to-Communication Lifting for BPP. In Proceedings of the 58th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 132-143. IEEE, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2017.21.
  23. Mika Göös and Thomas Watson. Communication Complexity of Set-Disjointness for All Probabilities. Theory of Computing, 12(1):1-23, 2016. Special issue for selected papers from APPROX-RANDOM 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4086/toc.2016.v012a009.
  24. Russell Impagliazzo and Ryan Williams. Communication Complexity with Synchronized Clocks. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 259-269. IEEE, 2010. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2010.32.
  25. Jan Johannsen. Depth Lower Bounds for Monotone Semi-Unbounded Fan-In Circuits. RAIRO - Theoretical Informatics and Applications, 35:277-286, 2001. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ita:2001120.
  26. Stasys Jukna. Boolean Function Complexity: Advances and Frontiers, volume 27 of Algorithms and Combinatorics. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  27. Hartmut Klauck. Lower Bounds for Quantum Communication Complexity. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):20-46, 2007. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0097539702405620.
  28. Hartmut Klauck. On Arthur Merlin Games in Communication Complexity. In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 189-199. IEEE, 2011. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2011.33.
  29. Pravesh Kothari, Raghu Meka, and Prasad Raghavendra. Approximating Rectangles by Juntas and Weakly-Exponential Lower Bounds for LP Relaxations of CSPs. In Proceedings of the 49th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 590-603. ACM, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055438.
  30. Eyal Kushilevitz and Noam Nisan. Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Google Scholar
  31. James Lee, Prasad Raghavendra, and David Steurer. Lower Bounds on the Size of Semidefinite Programming Relaxations. In Proceedings of the 47th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 567-576. ACM, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2746539.2746599.
  32. Periklis Papakonstantinou, Dominik Scheder, and Hao Song. Overlays and Limited Memory Communication. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 298-308. IEEE, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2014.37.
  33. Toniann Pitassi and Robert Robere. Strongly Exponential Lower Bounds for Monotone Computation. In Proceedings of the 49th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 1246-1255. ACM, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055478.
  34. Anup Rao and Amir Yehudayoff. Communication Complexity. In preparation, 2017. Google Scholar
  35. Ran Raz and Pierre McKenzie. Separation of the Monotone NC Hierarchy. Combinatorica, 19(3):403-435, 1999. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004930050062.
  36. Robert Robere, Toniann Pitassi, Benjamin Rossman, and Stephen Cook. Exponential Lower Bounds for Monotone Span Programs. In Proceedings of the 57th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 406-415. IEEE, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.51.
  37. Tim Roughgarden and Omri Weinstein. On the Communication Complexity of Approximate Fixed Points. In Proceedings of the 57th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 229-238. IEEE, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.32.
  38. Alexander Sherstov. The Pattern Matrix Method. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(6):1969-2000, 2011. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/080733644.
  39. Rahul Tripathi. The 1-Versus-2 Queries Problem Revisited. Theory of Computing Systems, 46(2):193-221, 2010. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00224-008-9126-x.
  40. Nikolai Vereshchagin. Relativizability in Complexity Theory. In Provability, Complexity, Grammars, volume 192 of AMS Translations, Series 2, pages 87-172. American Mathematical Society, 1999. Google Scholar
  41. Thomas Watson. Amplification with One NP Oracle Query. Technical Report TR18-058, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 2018. URL: https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/058.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail