skip to main content
research-article

Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds

Published:01 July 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial-time lower bounds for natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, MOD6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. The proofs of these lower bounds follow a proof-by-contradiction strategy that we call resource trading or alternation trading. An important open problem is to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be.

We propose a methodology for studying these proofs that makes them amenable to both formal analysis and automated theorem proving. We prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. Implementing a small-scale theorem prover based on these results, we extract new human-readable time lower bounds for several problems and identify patterns that allow for further generalization. The framework can also be used to prove concrete limitations on the current techniques.

References

  1. Allender, E., Koucky, M., Ronneburger, D., Roy, S., and Vinay, V. 2001. Time-space tradeoffs in the counting hierarchy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’01). 295--302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Arnold, D. B. and Sleep, M. R. 1980. Uniform random generation of balanced parenthesis strings. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2, 1, 122--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Arora, S. and Barak, B. 2009. Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Buss, S. and Williams, R. 2012. Limits on alternation-trading proofs for time-space lower bounds. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’12). 181--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Chandra, A. K., Kozen, D., and Stockmeyer, L. J. 1981. Alternation. J. ACM 28, 1, 114--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cook, S. A. 1988. Short propositional formulas represent nondeterministic computations. Inf. Process. Lett. 26, 5, 269--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Derman. C. 1972. Finite State Markov Decision Processes. Academic Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Diehl, S. and van Melkebeek, D. 2006. Time-space lower bounds for the polynomial-time hierarchy on randomized machines. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 563--594. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Diehl, S., van Melkebeek, D., and Williams, R. 2011. An improved time-space lower bound for tautologies. J. Comb. Optim. 22, 3, 325--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dietzfelbinger, M. and Hühne, M. 1999. Matching upper and lower bounds for simulations of several linear tapes on one multidimensional tape. Comput. Complex. 8, 4, 371--392. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Fortnow, L. 1997. Nondeterministic polynomial time versus nondeterministic logarithmic space: Time-space tradeoffs for satisfiability. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’97). 52--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Fortnow, L. and van Melkebeek, D. 2000. Time-space tradeoffs for nondeterministic computation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’00). 2--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fortnow, L., Lipton, R., van Melkebeek, D., and Viglas, A. 2005. Time-space lower bounds for satisfiability. J. ACM 52, 6, 835--865. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Grigorev, D. Y. 1982. Time complexity of multidimensional turing machines. J. Math. Sci. 20, 4, 2290--2295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Halpern, J. Y., Loui, M. C., Meyer, A. R., and Weise, D. 1986. On time versus space III. Math. Syst. Theory 19, 1, 13--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hopcroft, J., Paul, W., and Valiant, L. 1977. On time versus space. J. ACM 24, 2. 332--337. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kannan, R. 1983. Alternation and the power of nondeterminism. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’83). 344--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kannan, R. 1984. Towards separating nondeterminism from determinism. Math. Syst. Theory 17, 1, 29--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lipton, R. J. and Viglas, A. 1999. On the complexity of SAT. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’99). 459--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Liskiewicz, M. and Lorys, K. 1990. Fast simulations of time-bounded one-tape turing machines by space-bounded ones. SIAM J. Comput. 19, 3, 511--521. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Loui, M. C. 1980. Simulations among multidimensional Turing machines. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tech. rep. 242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Maass, W. and Schorr, A. 1987. Speed-up of turing machines with one work tape and a two-way input tape. SIAM J. Comput. 16, 1, 195--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Nepomnjascii, V. 1970. Rudimentary predicates and Turing calculations. Soviet Math. Doklady 11, 1462--1465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul, W. and Reischuk, R. 1981. On time versus space II. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 22, 312--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Paul, W., Pippenger, N., Szemeredi, E., and Trotter, W. 1983. On determinism versus nondeterminism and related problems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’83). 429--438. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Santhanam, R. 2001. Lower bounds on the complexity of recognizing SAT by Turing machines. Inf. Process. Lett. 79, 5, 243--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Schnorr, C. 1978. Satisfiability is quasilinear complete in NQL. J. ACM 25, 1, 136--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Tourlakis, I. 2001. Time-space tradeoffs for SAT on nonuniform machines. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 2, 268--287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. van Melkebeek, D. 2004. Time-space lower bounds for NP-complete problems. In Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, G. Paun, G. Rozenberg, and A. Salomaa Eds., World Scientific, 265--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. van Melkebeek, D. 2006. A survey of lower bounds for satisfiability and related problems. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 2, 3, 197--303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. van Melkebeek, D. and Raz, R. 2005. A time lower bound for satisfiability. Theor. Comput. Sci. 348, 2--3, 311--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. van Melkebeek, D. and Watson, T. 2007. A quantum time-space lower bound for the counting hierarchy. Tech. rep. 1600, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Viola, E. 2007. On approximate majority and probabilistic time. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Williams, R. 2006. Inductive time-space lower bounds for SAT and related problems. J. Comput. Complex. 15, 433--470. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Williams, R. 2007. Algorithms and resource requirements for fundamental problems. Ph.D. thesis CMU-CS-07-147, Carnegie Mellon University. August. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Williams, R. 2008. Time-space tradeoffs for counting NP solutions modulo integers. J. Comput. Complex. 17, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computation Theory
      ACM Transactions on Computation Theory  Volume 5, Issue 2
      July 2013
      104 pages
      ISSN:1942-3454
      EISSN:1942-3462
      DOI:10.1145/2493246
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 July 2013
      • Accepted: 1 October 2012
      • Revised: 1 June 2012
      • Received: 1 September 2011
      Published in toct Volume 5, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!