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.
- Scott Aaronson. 2017. P=?NP. In Proceedings of the Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC’17). 4.Google Scholar
- Scott Aaronson and Avi Wigderson. 2009. Algebrization: A new barrier in complexity theory. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory 1, 1, Article 2. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Scott Aaronson. 2010. Can relativization results be used to prove sentences formally independent? Retrieved from https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/3207.Google Scholar
- Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. 2009. Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Emil Artin. 1957. Geometric Algebra. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Barış Aydınlıoğlu. 2017. A Study of the NEXP vs. P/poly Problem and its Variants. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
- László Babai. 1990. E-mail and the unexpected power of interaction. In Proceedings of the Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. 30--44.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- László Babai and Lance Fortnow. 1991. Arithmetization: A new method in structural complexity theory. Comput. Complex. 1, 41--66.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- László Babai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. 1991. Nondeterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computat. Complex. 1, 3--40. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Theodore P. Baker, John Gill, and Robert Solovay. 1975. Relativizations of the P =? NP question. SIAM J. Comput. 4, 4, 431--442.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Stephen Bellantoni and Stephen A. Cook. 1992. A new recursion-theoretic characterization of the polytime functions. Comput. Complex. 2, 2, 97--110. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Harry Buhrman, Lance Fortnow, and Thomas Thierauf. 1998. Nonrelativizing separations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity. 8--12. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Timothy Chow. 2011. Definition of relativization of complexity class. Retrieved from http://mathoverflow.net/q/76021.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Niel de Beaudrap. 2014. A good reference for complexity class operators? Retrieved from http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21602.Google Scholar
- Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus, Jörg Flum, and Wolfgang Thomas. 1994. Mathematical Logic (2nd ed.). Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer.Google Scholar
- Lance Fortnow. 1994. The role of relativization in complexity theory. Bull. EATCS 52, 229--243.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Lance Fortnow, John Rompel, and Michael Sipser. 1994. On the power of multi-prover interactive protocols. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 134, 2, 545--557. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lance Fortnow and Michael Sipser. 1988. Are there interactive protocols for coNP languages? Info. Process. Lett. 28, 5, 249--251. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Hans Heller. 1986. On relativized exponential and probabilistic complexity classes. Info. Control 71, 3, 231--243. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Ravi Kannan. 1982. Circuit-size lower bounds and nonreducibility to sparse sets. Info. Control 55, 1, 40--56.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hartmut Klauck. 2003. Rectangle size bounds and threshold covers in communication complexity. In Comput. Complex. 118--134.Google Scholar
- Robin Kothari. 2014. Is relativization well-defined? Retrieved from http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21606.Google Scholar
- Dexter Kozen. 2006. Theory of Computation. Texts in Computer Science. Springer. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Richard Lipton. 2016. Blog post: I hate oracle results. Retrieved from http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/i-hate-oracle-results.Google Scholar
- Carsten Lund, Lance Fortnow, Howard J. Karloff, and Noam Nisan. 1992. Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. J. ACM 39, 4, 859--868. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Moni Naor. 1991. Bit commitment using pseudorandomness. J. Cryptol. 4, 2, 151--158. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sasho Nikolov. 2014. What are natural examples of non-relativizable proofs? Retrieved from https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/20515.Google Scholar
- Rahul Santhanam. 2009. Circuit lower bounds for Merlin-Arthur classes. SIAM J. Comput. 3, 3, 1038--1061. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rahul Santhanam. 2016. Comment to blog post: Barriers to proving P!=NP. Retrieved from http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=272#comment-7634.Google Scholar
- Adi Shamir. 1992. IP = PSPACE. J. ACM, 39, 4, 869--877. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexander Shen. 1992. IP = PSPACE: simplified proof. J. ACM, 3, 4, 878--880. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Victor Shoup. 1990. New algorithms for finding irreducible polynomials over finite fields. Math. Comput. 5, 189, 435--447.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Leslie G. Valiant and Vijay V. Vazirani. 1986. NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 47, 3, 85--93. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Affine Relativization: Unifying the Algebrization and Relativization Barriers
Recommendations
An axiomatic approach to algebrization
STOC '09: Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computingNon-relativization of complexity issues can be interpreted as giving some evidence that these issues cannot be resolved by "black-box" techniques. In the early 1990's, a sequence of important non-relativizing results was proved, mainly using algebraic ...
Algebrization: A New Barrier in Complexity Theory
Any proof of P ≠ NP will have to overcome two barriers: relativization and natural proofs. Yet over the last decade, we have seen circuit lower bounds (e.g., that PP does not have linear-size circuits) that overcome both barriers simultaneously. So the ...
Randomness is Hard
We study the set of incompressible strings for various resource bounded versions of Kolmogorov complexity. The resource bounded versions of Kolmogorov complexity we study are polynomial time CD complexity defined by Sipser, the nondeterministic variant ...






Comments