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)

Recommend


More recommend