exponential lower bounds for monotone span programs
play

Exponential Lower Bounds for Monotone Span Programs Stephen A. Cook - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Exponential Lower Bounds for Monotone Span Programs Stephen A. Cook Toniann Pitassi FOCS 2016 Robert Robere Benjamin Rossman University of Toronto Familiar Picture 2 Familiar Picture Formulas 3 Familiar Picture Switching Networks


  1. The Proof Previous Proofs: Direct combinatorial constructions Resulting matrices have {0,1} entries, for which we have quasipolynomial upper bounds [Razborov '90]. Our Proof: Prove a new lifting theorem to reduce the lower bound to bounding a new algebraic query measure on search problems. Our matrices have entries in , and so we can avoid 76 the above obstacle.

  2. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : 77

  3. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) 78

  4. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) ( Lift ) Reduce constructing a good matrix A 2 for f to lower bounding a complexity measure on Search(f) 79

  5. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) ( Lift ) Reduce constructing a good matrix A 2 for f to lower bounding a complexity measure on Search(f) Actually prove the query lower bounds against 3 80 Search(f)

  6. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) ( Lift ) Reduce constructing a good matrix A 2 for f to lower bounding a complexity measure on Search(f) Actually prove the query lower bounds against 3 81 Search(f)

  7. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Follows from [Raz-Mckenzie '97] [Goos-Pitassi '15] Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) ( Lift ) Reduce constructing a good matrix A 2 for f to lower bounding a complexity measure on Search(f) Actually prove the query lower bounds against 3 82 Search(f)

  8. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) ( Lift ) Reduce constructing a good matrix A 2 for f to lower bounding a complexity measure on Search(f) Actually prove the query lower bounds against 3 83 Search(f)

  9. The Proof Lifting Theorem 84

  10. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Communication Setting) 85

  11. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Communication Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) 86

  12. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Communication Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Decision Tree Hard for Weak Complexity Measure 87

  13. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Communication Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Decision Tree Hard for Weak Complexity Measure 88

  14. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Communication Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Decision Tree Compose S with some two input function g Alice gets x inputs Bob gets y inputs Hard for Weak Complexity Measure 89

  15. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Communication Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Decision Communication Tree Matrix Compose S with some two input function g Alice gets x inputs Bob gets y inputs Hard for Hard for Weak Complexity Strong Complexity Measure Measure 90

  16. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) 91

  17. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) 92

  18. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Hard for Strong Complexity Measure 93

  19. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) ? Hard for Hard for Weak Complexity Strong Complexity Measure Measure 94

  20. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) ? ? Hard for Hard for Weak Complexity Strong Complexity Measure Measure 95

  21. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Polynomial ? certifying a large algebraic gap for S Hard for Hard for Weak Complexity Strong Complexity Measure Measure 96

  22. The Proof Lifting Theorem (Our Setting) Search Problem S = Search(f) Polynomial certifying a large Compose p with algebraic gap two-input function for S g instead! Hard for Hard for Weak Complexity Strong Complexity Measure Measure 97

  23. Lifting Theorem (ST-CONN) Theorem: ( Lifting Theorem for Rank Measure ) Consider layered ST-CONN on the grid, and let k be the algebraic gap complexity of the ST-CONN search problem. There is a real matrix A such that 98

  24. Lifting Theorem (ST-CONN) Theorem: ( Lifting Theorem for Rank Measure ) Consider layered ST-CONN on the grid, and let k be the algebraic gap complexity of the ST-CONN search problem. There is a real matrix A such that Proof: Intuition on previous slide, extension of the Pattern Matrix Method [Sherstov '08]. 99

  25. The Proof Overview Rank Measure [Razborov '90] : Associate with certain special functions f (like GEN 1 and ST-CONN) a search problem Search(f) ( Lift ) Reduce constructing a good matrix A 2 for f to lower bounding a complexity measure on Search(f) Actually prove the query lower bounds against 3 100 Search(f)

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend