skip to main content
research-article

Reconstruction of Full Rank Algebraic Branching Programs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

An algebraic branching program (ABP) A can be modelled as a product expression X1amp;middot; X2Xd, where X1 and Xd are 1 × w and w × 1 matrices, respectively, and every other Xk is a w × w matrix; the entries of these matrices are linear forms in m variables over a field F (which we assume to be either Q or a field of characteristic poly(m)). The polynomial computed by A is the entry of the 1 × 1 matrix obtained from the product ∏k=1d Xk. We say A is a full rank ABP if the w2(d − 2) + 2w linear forms occurring in the matrices X1, X2, …, Xd are F-linearly independent. Our main result is a randomized reconstruction algorithm for full rank ABPs: Given blackbox access to an m-variate polynomial f of degree at most m, the algorithm outputs a full rank ABP computing f if such an ABP exists, or outputs “no full rank ABP exists” (with high probability). The running time of the algorithm is polynomial in m and β, where β is the bit length of the coefficients of f. The algorithm works even if Xk is a wk−1 × wk matrix (with w0 = wd = 1), and w = (w1, …, wd − 1) is unknown. The result is obtained by designing a randomized polynomial time equivalence test for the family of iterated matrix multiplication polynomial IMMw, d, the (1, 1)-th entry of a product of d rectangular symbolic matrices whose dimensions are according to w ∈ Nd−1. At its core, the algorithm exploits a connection between the irreducible invariant subspaces of the Lie algebra of the group of symmetries of a polynomial f that is equivalent to IMMw, d and the “layer spaces” of a full rank ABP computing f. This connection also helps determine the group of symmetries of IMMw, d and show that IMMw, d is characterized by its group of symmetries.

References

  1. Manindra Agrawal. 2005. Proving lower bounds via pseudo-random generators. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS’05). Springer, Berlin, 92--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Manindra Agrawal, Rohit Gurjar, Arpita Korwar, and Nitin Saxena. 2015. Hitting-sets for ROABP and sum of set-multilinear circuits. SIAM J. Comput. 44, 3 (2015), 669--697.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Manindra Agrawal and Nitin Saxena. 2006. Equivalence of F-algebras and cubic forms. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’06). Springer, Berlin, 115--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Dana Angluin. 1988. Queries and concept learning. Mach. Learn. 2, 4 (1988), 319--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Vikraman Arvind, Partha Mukhopadhyay, and Srikanth Srinivasan. 2008. New results on noncommutative and commutative polynomial identity testing. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’08). 268--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Amos Beimel, Francesco Bergadano, Nader H. Bshouty, Eyal Kushilevitz, and Stefano Varricchio. 2000. Learning functions represented as multiplicity automata. J. ACM 47, 3 (2000), 506--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Elwyn Berlekamp. 1967. Factoring polynomials over finite fields. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 46 (1967), 1853--1859.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lenore Blum, Mike Shub, and Steve Smale. 1988. On a theory of computation over the real numbers; NP completeness, recursive functions and universal machines (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 387--397. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. David G. Cantor and Hans Zassenhaus. 1981. A new algorithm for factoring polynomials over finite fields. Math. Comp. 36 (1981), 587--592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Enrico Carlini. 2006. Reducing the number of variables of a polynomial. In Algebraic Geometry and Geometric Modelling, Mathematics and Visualization. Springer, 237--247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Marco L. Carmosino, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Antonina Kolokolova. 2016. Learning algorithms from natural proofs. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’16). 10:1--10:24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Zeev Dvir, Rafael Mendes de Oliveira, and Amir Shpilka. 2014. Testing equivalence of polynomials under shifts. In Proceedings of the 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’14). 417--428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Michael A. Forbes and Amir Shpilka. 2013. Quasipolynomial-time identity testing of non-commutative and read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs. In 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2013, 26-29 October, 2013, Berkeley, CA, USA. 243--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Michael A. Forbes, Amir Shpilka, and Ben Lee Volk. 2017. Succinct hitting sets and barriers to proving algebraic circuits lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’17). 653--664. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Fulvio Gesmundo. 2016. Gemetric aspects of iterated matrix multiplication. J. Alg. 461 (2016), 42--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Joshua A. Grochow. 2012. Symmetry and Equivalence Relations in Classical and Geometric Complexity Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Chicago. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Joshua A. Grochow, Mrinal Kumar, Michael E. Saks, and Shubhangi Saraf. 2017. Towards an algebraic natural proofs barrier via polynomial identity testing. CoRR abs/1701.01717 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ankit Gupta, Neeraj Kayal, and Satyanarayana V. Lokam. 2011. Efficient reconstruction of random multilinear formulas. In Proceedings of the IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’11). 778--787. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ankit Gupta, Neeraj Kayal, and Satyanarayana V. Lokam. 2012. Reconstruction of depth-4 multilinear circuits with top fan-in 2. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference (STOC’12). 625--642. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ankit Gupta, Neeraj Kayal, and Youming Qiao. 2013. Random arithmetic formulas can be reconstructed efficiently. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’13). 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Johan Håstad. 1989. Tensor rank is NP-complete. In Proceedings of the 16th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’89). 451--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Joos Heintz and Claus-Peter Schnorr. 1980. Testing polynomials which are easy to compute (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 262--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Erich Kaltofen and Barry M. Trager. 1988. Computing with polynomials given by black boxes for their evaluation: Greatest common divisors, factorization, separation of numerators and denominators. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 296--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Zohar Shay Karnin and Amir Shpilka. 2009. Reconstruction of generalized depth-3 arithmetic circuits with bounded top fan-in. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’09). 274--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Neeraj Kayal. 2011. Efficient algorithms for some special cases of the polynomial equivalence problem. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’11). 1409--1421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Neeraj Kayal. 2012. Affine projections of polynomials: Extended abstract. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference (STOC’12). 643--662. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Neeraj Kayal. 2012. An exponential lower bound for the sum of powers of bounded degree polynomials. Proceedings of the Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC’12), vol. 19, 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Neeraj Kayal, Vineet Nair, and Chandan Saha. 2018. Average-case linear matrix factorization and reconstruction of low width algebraic branching programs. Proceedings of the Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC’18), vol. 25, 29. Retrieved from https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/029.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Adam Klivans, Pravesh Kothari, and Igor Carboni Oliveira. 2013. Constructing hard functions using learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’13). 86--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Adam Klivans and Amir Shpilka. 2003. Learning arithmetic circuits via partial derivatives. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory and 7th Kernel Workshop on Computational Learning Theory and Kernel Machines (COLT/Kernel’03). 463--476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Adam Klivans and Daniel A. Spielman. 2001. Randomness efficient identity testing of multivariate polynomials. In Proceedings on 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 216--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. A. K. Lenstra, H. W. jun. Lenstra, and Lászlo Lovász. 1982. Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients. Math. Ann. 261 (1982), 515--534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Meena Mahajan and V. Vinay. 1997. Determinant: Combinatorics, algorithms, and complexity. Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1997, 5 (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Daniel Minahan and Ilya Volkovich. 2016. Complete derandomization of identity testing and reconstruction of read-once formulas. Proceedings of the Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC’16), vol. 23, 171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Noam Nisan. 1991. Lower bounds for non-commutative computation (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 410--418. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jacques Patarin. 1996. Hidden fields equations (HFE) and isomorphisms of polynomials (IP): Two new families of asymmetric algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques: Advances in Cryptology (EUROCRYPT’96). 33--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Alexander A. Razborov and Steven Rudich. 1997. Natural proofs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 1 (1997), 24--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Amir Shpilka. 2007. Interpolation of depth-3 arithmetic circuits with two multiplication gates. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 284--293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Amir Shpilka and Ilya Volkovich. 2009. Improved polynomial identity testing for read-once formulas. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX’09), and 13th International Workshop (RANDOM’09). 700--713. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Amir Shpilka and Amir Yehudayoff. 2010. Arithmetic circuits: A survey of recent results and open questions. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 5, 3-4 (2010), 207--388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Gaurav Sinha. 2016. Reconstruction of real depth-3 circuits with top fan-in 2. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’16). 31:1--31:53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Thomas Thierauf. 1998. The isomorphism problem for read-once branching programs and arithmetic circuits. Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1998, 1 (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ilya Volkovich. 2016. A guide to learning arithmetic circuits. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Learning Theory (COLT’16). 1540--1561.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Reconstruction of Full Rank Algebraic Branching Programs

        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

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        About Cookies On This Site

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

        Learn more

        Got it!