Document Open Access Logo

Certification with an NP Oracle

Authors Guy Blanc, Caleb Koch, Jane Lange, Carmen Strassle, Li-Yang Tan

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.18.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.9 MB
  • 22 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Guy Blanc
  • Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, CA, USA
Caleb Koch
  • Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, CA, USA
Jane Lange
  • Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA
Carmen Strassle
  • Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, CA, USA
Li-Yang Tan
  • Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, CA, USA

Funding

Guy, Caleb, Carmen, and Li-Yang are supported by NSF awards 1942123, 2211237, and 2224246. Jane is supported by NSF Award 2006664. Caleb is also supported by an NDSEG fellowship.

Acknowledgements

We thank the ITCS reviewers for their useful comments and feedback.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Guy Blanc, Caleb Koch, Jane Lange, Carmen Strassle, and Li-Yang Tan. Certification with an NP Oracle. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 251, pp. 18:1-18:22, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.18

Abstract

In the certification problem, the algorithm is given a function f with certificate complexity k and an input x^⋆, and the goal is to find a certificate of size ≤ poly(k) for f’s value at x^⋆. This problem is in NP^NP, and assuming 𝖯 ≠ NP, is not in 𝖯. Prior works, dating back to Valiant in 1984, have therefore sought to design efficient algorithms by imposing assumptions on f such as monotonicity. Our first result is a BPP^NP algorithm for the general problem. The key ingredient is a new notion of the balanced influence of variables, a natural variant of influence that corrects for the bias of the function. Balanced influences can be accurately estimated via uniform generation, and classic BPP^NP algorithms are known for the latter task. We then consider certification with stricter instance-wise guarantees: for each x^⋆, find a certificate whose size scales with that of the smallest certificate for x^⋆. In sharp contrast with our first result, we show that this problem is NP^NP-hard even to approximate. We obtain an optimal inapproximability ratio, adding to a small handful of problems in the higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy for which optimal inapproximability is known. Our proof involves the novel use of bit-fixing dispersers for gap amplification.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Computational complexity and cryptography
Keywords
  • Certificate complexity
  • Boolean functions
  • polynomial hierarchy
  • hardness of approximation

Metrics

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

Related Versions

References

  1. Dana Angluin. Queries and concept learning. Machine learning, 2(4):319-342, April 1988. URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022821128753.
  2. Pablo Barceló, Mikaël Monet, Jorge Pérez, and Bernardo Subercaseaux. Model interpretability through the lens of computational complexity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 33:15487-15498, 2020. Google Scholar
  3. Mihir Bellare, Oded Goldreich, and Erez Petrank. Uniform generation of np-witnesses using an np-oracle. Information and Computation, 163(2):510-526, 2000. Google Scholar
  4. Guy Blanc, Caleb Koch, Jane Lange, and Li-Yang Tan. The query complexity of certification. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022, pages 623-636, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519935.3519993.
  5. Guy Blanc, Jane Lange, and Li-Yang Tan. Provably efficient, succinct, and precise explanations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 2021. Google Scholar
  6. Harry Buhrman and Ronald de Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21-43, 2002. Google Scholar
  7. Shuchi Chawla, Jelani Nelson, Chris Umans, and David Woodruff. Visions in theoretical computer science: A report on the TCS visioning workshop 2020. arXiv preprint, 2021. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.02846.
  8. Stephen A. Cook. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '71, pages 151-158, New York, NY, USA, 1971. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/800157.805047.
  9. Remi Delannoy and Kuldeep S. Meel. On almost-uniform generation of SAT solutions: The power of 3-wise independent hashing. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 17:1-17:10, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3531130.3533338.
  10. Ariel Gabizon and Ronen Shaltiel. Invertible zero-error dispersers and defective memory with stuck-at errors. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Techniques, 2012. Google Scholar
  11. Meghal Gupta and Naren Sarayu Manoj. An optimal algorithm for certifying monotone functions. arXiv preprint, 2022. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01224.
  12. Mark R Jerrum, Leslie G Valiant, and Vijay V Vazirani. Random generation of combinatorial structures from a uniform distribution. Theoretical computer science, 43:169-188, 1986. Google Scholar
  13. Stasys Jukna. Boolean Function Complexity: Advances and Frontiers. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012. Google Scholar
  14. Elchanan Mossel and Christopher Umans. On the complexity of approximating the VC dimension. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 65(4):660-671, 2002. Google Scholar
  15. Ryan O'Donnell. Analysis of Boolean Functions. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Google Scholar
  16. Ryan O'Donnell, Michael Saks, Oded Schramm, and Rocco Servedio. Every decision tree has an influential variable. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 31-39, 2005. Google Scholar
  17. Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. Anchors: High-precision model-agnostic explanations. In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 1527-1535, 2018. Google Scholar
  18. Marcus Schaefer and Chris Umans. Completeness in the polynomial-time hierarchy: Part ii. SIGACT News, 33(4):22-36, 2002. Google Scholar
  19. Marcus Schaefer and Christopher Umans. Completeness in the polynomial-time hierarchy: A compendium. SIGACT news, 33(3):32-49, 2002. Google Scholar
  20. Andy Shih, Arthur Choi, and Adnan Darwiche. A symbolic approach to explaining bayesian network classifiers. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5103-5111, 2018. Google Scholar
  21. Michael Sipser. A complexity theoretic approach to randomness. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 330-335, 1983. Google Scholar
  22. Larry Stockmeyer. The complexity of approximate counting. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 118-126, 1983. Google Scholar
  23. Amnon Ta-Shma, Christopher Umans, and David Zuckerman. Loss-less condensers, unbalanced expanders, and extractors. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 143-152, 2001. Google Scholar
  24. Christopher Umans. Hardness of approximating Σ₂^p minimization problems. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 465-474, 1999. Google Scholar
  25. Christopher Umans. On the complexity and inapproximability of shortest implicant problems. In Proceedings of the 26th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 687-696, 1999. Google Scholar
  26. Christopher Umans. The minimum equivalent DNF problem and shortest implicants. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(4):597-611, 2001. Google Scholar
  27. Christopher Umans. Optimization problems in the polynomial-time hierarchy. In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pages 345-355. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  28. Christopher Matthew Umans. Approximability and completeness in the polynomial hierarchy. University of California, Berkeley, 2000. Google Scholar
  29. Leslie Valiant. A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27(11):1134-1142, 1984. Google Scholar
  30. Moshe Vardi. The SAT revolution: Solving, sampling, and counting. Available at URL: https://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/papers/highlights15.pdf.
  31. Daniel S Weld and Gagan Bansal. The challenge of crafting intelligible intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 62(6):70-79, 2019. Google Scholar
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
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact