skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Affine Relativization: Unifying the Algebrization and Relativization Barriers

Published:24 January 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We strengthen existing evidence for the so-called “algebrization barrier.” Algebrization—short for algebraic relativization—was introduced by Aaronson and Wigderson (AW) (STOC 2008) to characterize proofs involving arithmetization, simulation, and other “current techniques.” However, unlike relativization, eligible statements under this notion do not seem to have basic closure properties, making it conceivable to take two proofs, both with algebrizing conclusions, and combine them to get a proof without. Further, the notion is undefined for most types of statements and does not seem to yield a general criterion by which we can tell, given a proof, whether it algebrizes. In fact, the very notion of an algebrizing proof is never made explicit, and casual attempts to define it are problematic. All these issues raise the question of what evidence, if any, is obtained by knowing whether some statement does or does not algebrize.

We give a reformulation of algebrization without these shortcomings. First, we define what it means for any statement/proof to hold relative to any language, with no need to refer to devices like a Turing machine with an oracle tape. Our approach dispels the widespread misconception that the notion of oracle access is inherently tied to a computational model. We also connect relativizing statements to proofs, by showing that every proof that some statement relativizes is essentially a relativizing proof of that statement.

We then define a statement/proof as relativizing affinely if it holds relative to every affine oracle—here an affine oracle is the result of a particular error correcting code applied to the characteristic string of a language. We show that every statement that AW declare as algebrizing does relativize affinely, in fact, has a proof that relativizes affinely, and that no such proof exists for any of the statements shown not-algebrizing by AW in the classical computation model.

Our work complements, and goes beyond, the subsequent work by Impagliazzo, Kabanets, and Kolokolova (STOC 2009), which also proposes a reformulation of algebrization, but falls short of recovering some key results of AW, most notably regarding the NEXP versus P/poly question.

Using our definitions, we obtain new streamlined proofs of several classic results in complexity, including PSPACE ⊂ IP and NEXP ⊂ MIP. This may be of separate interest.

References

  1. Scott Aaronson. 2017. P=?NP. In Proceedings of the Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC’17). 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Scott Aaronson and Avi Wigderson. 2009. Algebrization: A new barrier in complexity theory. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory 1, 1, Article 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Scott Aaronson. 2010. Can relativization results be used to prove sentences formally independent? Retrieved from https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/3207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. 2009. Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Sanjeev Arora, Russell Impagliazzo, and Umesh Vazirani. 1992. Relativizing versus nonrelativizing techniques: the role of local checkability. Retrieved from http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/∼russell/ias.ps.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. 1998. Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. J. ACM 45, 3, 501--555. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Emil Artin. 1957. Geometric Algebra. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Barış Aydınlıoğlu. 2017. A Study of the NEXP vs. P/poly Problem and its Variants. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. László Babai. 1990. E-mail and the unexpected power of interaction. In Proceedings of the Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. 30--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. László Babai and Lance Fortnow. 1991. Arithmetization: A new method in structural complexity theory. Comput. Complex. 1, 41--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. László Babai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. 1991. Nondeterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computat. Complex. 1, 3--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. László Babai, Peter Frankl, and Janos Simon. 1986. Complexity classes in communication complexity theory (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’86). 337--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Theodore P. Baker, John Gill, and Robert Solovay. 1975. Relativizations of the P =? NP question. SIAM J. Comput. 4, 4, 431--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Richard Beigel, Harry Buhrman, and Lance Fortnow. 1998. NP might not be as easy as detecting unique solutions. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’98). 203--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stephen Bellantoni and Stephen A. Cook. 1992. A new recursion-theoretic characterization of the polytime functions. Comput. Complex. 2, 2, 97--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Harry Buhrman, Lance Fortnow, and Thomas Thierauf. 1998. Nonrelativizing separations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity. 8--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Harry Buhrman, Nikolai K. Vereshchagin, and Ronald de Wolf. 2007. On computation and communication with small bias. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Complexity. 24--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Timothy Chow. 2011. Definition of relativization of complexity class. Retrieved from http://mathoverflow.net/q/76021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alan Cobham. 1964. The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions. In Proceedings of the International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science II. 24--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Niel de Beaudrap. 2014. A good reference for complexity class operators? Retrieved from http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21602.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus, Jörg Flum, and Wolfgang Thomas. 1994. Mathematical Logic (2nd ed.). Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lance Fortnow. 1994. The role of relativization in complexity theory. Bull. EATCS 52, 229--243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lance Fortnow. 2016. Blog post: The great oracle debate of 1993. Retrieved from http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2009/06/great-oracle-debate-of-1993.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lance Fortnow, John Rompel, and Michael Sipser. 1994. On the power of multi-prover interactive protocols. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 134, 2, 545--557. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Lance Fortnow and Michael Sipser. 1988. Are there interactive protocols for coNP languages? Info. Process. Lett. 28, 5, 249--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Martin Furer, Oded Goldreich, Yishay Mansour, Michael Sipser, and Statis Zachos. 1989. On completeness and soundness in interactive proof systems. Advances in Computing Research: A Research Annual, vol. 5 (Randomness and Computation, S. Micali, ed.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Oded Goldreich, Silvio Micali, and Avi Wigderson. 1991. Proofs that yield nothing but their validity for all languages in NP have zero-knowledge proof systems. J. ACM 38, 3, 691--729. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hans Heller. 1986. On relativized exponential and probabilistic complexity classes. Info. Control 71, 3, 231--243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Wilfrid Hodges. 2014. Tarski’s truth definitions. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, editor, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall edition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Antonina Kolokolova. 2009. An axiomatic approach to algebrization. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’09). 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ravi Kannan. 1982. Circuit-size lower bounds and nonreducibility to sparse sets. Info. Control 55, 1, 40--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Hartmut Klauck. 2003. Rectangle size bounds and threshold covers in communication complexity. In Comput. Complex. 118--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Robin Kothari. 2014. Is relativization well-defined? Retrieved from http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21606.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dexter Kozen. 2006. Theory of Computation. Texts in Computer Science. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Richard Lipton. 2016. Blog post: I hate oracle results. Retrieved from http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/i-hate-oracle-results.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Carsten Lund, Lance Fortnow, Howard J. Karloff, and Noam Nisan. 1992. Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. J. ACM 39, 4, 859--868. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Moni Naor. 1991. Bit commitment using pseudorandomness. J. Cryptol. 4, 2, 151--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sasho Nikolov. 2014. What are natural examples of non-relativizable proofs? Retrieved from https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/20515.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Rahul Santhanam. 2009. Circuit lower bounds for Merlin-Arthur classes. SIAM J. Comput. 3, 3, 1038--1061. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Rahul Santhanam. 2016. Comment to blog post: Barriers to proving P!=NP. Retrieved from http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=272#comment-7634.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Adi Shamir. 1992. IP = PSPACE. J. ACM, 39, 4, 869--877. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Alexander Shen. 1992. IP = PSPACE: simplified proof. J. ACM, 3, 4, 878--880. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Victor Shoup. 1990. New algorithms for finding irreducible polynomials over finite fields. Math. Comput. 5, 189, 435--447.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Larry J. Stockmeyer and Albert R. Meyer. 1973. Word problems requiring exponential time: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’73). 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Seinosuke Toda. 1989. On the computational power of PP and +P. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’89). 514--519. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Leslie G. Valiant and Vijay V. Vazirani. 1986. NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 47, 3, 85--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Affine Relativization: Unifying the Algebrization and Relativization Barriers

      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

      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!