skip to main content
research-article

Fine-Grained Reductions from Approximate Counting to Decision

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 February 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article, we introduce a general framework for fine-grained reductions of approximate counting problems to their decision versions. (Thus, we use an oracle that decides whether any witness exists to multiplicatively approximate the number of witnesses with minimal overhead.) This mirrors a foundational result of Sipser (STOC 1983) and Stockmeyer (SICOMP 1985) in the polynomial-time setting, and a similar result of Müller (IWPEC 2006) in the FPT setting. Using our framework, we obtain such reductions for some of the most important problems in fine-grained complexity: the Orthogonal Vectors problem, 3SUM, and the Negative-Weight Triangle problem (which is closely related to All-Pairs Shortest Path). While all these problems have simple algorithms over which it is conjectured that no polynomial improvement is possible, our reductions would remain interesting even if these conjectures were proved; they have only polylogarithmic overhead and can therefore be applied to subpolynomial improvements such as the n3/ exp(Θ (√ log n))-time algorithm for the Negative-Weight Triangle problem due to Williams (STOC 2014). Our framework is also general enough to apply to versions of the problems for which more efficient algorithms are known. For example, the Orthogonal Vectors problem over GF(m)d for constant m can be solved in time n · poly (d) by a result of Williams and Yu (SODA 2014); our result implies that we can approximately count the number of orthogonal pairs with essentially the same running time.

We also provide a fine-grained reduction from approximate #SAT to SAT. Suppose the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH) is false, so that for some 1 < c < 2 and all k there is an O(cn)-time algorithm for k-SAT. Then we prove that for all k, there is an O(( c + o(1))n)-time algorithm for approximate #k-SAT. In particular, our result implies that the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) is equivalent to the seemingly weaker statement that there is no algorithm to approximate #3-SAT to within a factor of 1+ɛ in time 2o(n)/ ɛ2 (taking ɛ > 0 as part of the input).

References

  1. Amir Abboud, Richard Ryan Williams, and Huacheng Yu. 2015. More applications of the polynomial method to algorithm design. In Proceedings of the 26h Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’15), Piotr Indyk (Ed.). SIAM, 218--230. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973730.17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ilya Baran, Erik D. Demaine, and Mihai Patrascu. 2008. Subquadratic algorithms for 3SUM. Algorithmica 50, 4 (2008), 584--596. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-007-9036-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Paul Beame, Sariel Har-Peled, Sivaramakrishnan Natarajan Ramamoorthy, Cyrus Rashtchian, and Makrand Sinha. 2018. Edge estimation with independent set oracles. In 9th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS’18) (LIPIcs), Anna R. Karlin (Ed.), Vol. 94. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 38:1--38:21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2018.38Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anup Bhattacharya, Arijit Bishnu, Arijit Ghosh, and Gopinath Mishra. 2018. Triangle estimation using polylogarithmic queries. CoRR abs/1808.00691 (2018). arxiv:1808.00691 http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00691Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Anup Bhattacharya, Arijit Bishnu, Arijit Ghosh, and Gopinath Mishra. 2019. Hyperedge estimation using polylogarithmic subset queries. CoRR abs/1908.04196 (2019). arxiv:1908.04196 http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.04196Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Arijit Bishnu, Arijit Ghosh, Sudeshna Kolay, Gopinath Mishra, and Saket Saurabh. 2018. Parameterized query complexity of hitting set using stability of sunflowers. In 29th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC’18) (LIPIcs), Wen-Lian Hsu, Der-Tsai Lee, and Chung-Shou Liao (Eds.), Vol. 123. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 25:1--25:12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ISAAC.2018.25Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Ramamohan Paturi. 2008. The complexity of unique k-SAT: An isolation lemma for k-CNFs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74, 3 (2008), 386--393. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2007.06.015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Timothy M. Chan and Moshe Lewenstein. 2015. Clustered integer 3SUM via additive combinatorics. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’15), Rocco A. Servedio and Ronitt Rubinfeld (Eds.). ACM, 31--40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2746539.2746568Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Timothy M. Chan and Richard Ryan Williams. 2016. Deterministic APSP, orthogonal vectors, and more: Quickly derandomizing Razborov-Smolensky. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’16), Robert Krauthgamer (Ed.). SIAM, 1246--1255. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974331.ch87Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Xi Chen, Amit Levi, and Erik Waingarten. 2020. Nearly optimal edge estimation with independent set queries. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’20), Shuchi Chawla (Ed.). SIAM, 2916--2935. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.177Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Holger Dell, John Lapinskas, and Kitty Meeks. 2020. Approximately counting and sampling small witnesses using a colourful decision oracle. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’20), Shuchi Chawla (Ed.). SIAM, 2201--2211. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.135Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Martin E. Dyer, Leslie Ann Goldberg, Catherine S. Greenhill, and Mark Jerrum. 2004. The relative complexity of approximate counting problems. Algorithmica 38, 3 (2004), 471--500. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-003-1073-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Anka Gajentaan and Mark H. Overmars. 1995. On a class of O(n2) problems in computational geometry. Comput. Geom. 5 (1995), 165--185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-7721(95)00022-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jiawei Gao, Russell Impagliazzo, Antonina Kolokolova, and Richard Ryan Williams. 2017. Completeness for first-order properties on sparse structures with algorithmic applications. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’17), Philip N. Klein (Ed.). SIAM, 2162--2181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974782.141Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Timon Hertli. 2014. 3-SAT faster and simpler - Unique-SAT bounds for PPSZ hold in general. SIAM J. Comput. 43, 2 (2014), 718--729. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/120868177Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Russell Impagliazzo, William Matthews, and Ramamohan Paturi. 2012. A satisfiability algorithm for AC0. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’12), Yuval Rabani (Ed.). SIAM, 961--972. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973099.77Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi. 2001. On the complexity of k-SAT. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 62, 2 (2001), 367--375. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2000.1727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. 2001. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 4 (2001), 512--530. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2001.1774Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Svante Janson, Tomasz Luczak, and Andrzej Rucinski. 2000. Random Graphs. Wiley. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118032718Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mark Jerrum, Alistair Sinclair, and Eric Vigoda. 2004. A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with nonnegative entries. J. ACM 51, 4 (2004), 671--697. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1008731.1008738Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Konstantin Kutzkov. 2007. New upper bound for the #3-SAT problem. Inf. Process. Lett. 105, 1 (2007), 1--5. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2007.06.017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Moritz Müller. 2006. Randomized approximations of parameterized counting problems. In Parameterized and Exact Computation, 2nd International Workshop (IWPEC’06), Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Hans L. Bodlaender and Michael A. Langston (Eds.), Vol. 4169. Springer, 50--59. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/11847250_5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mihai Patrascu. 2010. Towards polynomial lower bounds for dynamic problems. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’10), Leonard J. Schulman (Ed.). ACM, 603--610. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1806689.1806772Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ramamohan Paturi, Pavel Pudlák, Michael E. Saks, and Francis Zane. 2005. An improved exponential-time algorithm for k-SAT. J. ACM 52, 3 (2005), 337--364. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1066100.1066101Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Manuel Schmitt and Rolf Wanka. 2013. Exploiting independent subformulas: A faster approximation scheme for #k-SAT. Inf. Process. Lett. 113, 9 (2013), 337--344. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2013.02.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. McDiarmid. 1989. On the method of bounded differences. In Surveys in Combinatorics, 1989: Invited Papers at the Twelfth British Combinatorial Conference, J. Siemons (Ed.). London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, 148--188. DOI:10.1017/CBO9781107359949.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Michael Sipser. 1983. A complexity theoretic approach to randomness. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. David S. Johnson, Ronald Fagin, Michael L. Fredman, David Harel, Richard M. Karp, Nancy A. Lynch, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Ronald L. Rivest, Walter L. Ruzzo, and Joel I. Seiferas (Eds.). ACM, 330--335. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/800061.808762Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Larry J. Stockmeyer. 1985. On approximation algorithms for #P. SIAM J. Comput. 14, 4 (1985), 849--861. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/0214060Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Marc Thurley. 2012. An approximation algorithm for #k-SAT. In 29th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’12) (LIPIcs), Christoph Dürr and Thomas Wilke (Eds.), Vol. 14. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 78--87. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2012.78Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Seinosuke Toda. 1991. PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM J. Comput. 20, 5 (1991), 865--877. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/0220053Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Patrick Traxler. 2016. The relative exponential time complexity of approximate counting satisfying assignments. Algorithmica 75, 2 (2016), 339--362. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-016-0134-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Leslie G. Valiant. 1979. The complexity of computing the permanent. Theor. Comput. Sci. 8 (1979), 189--201. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(79)90044-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Leslie G. Valiant and Vijay V. Vazirani. 1986. NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 47, 3 (1986), 85--93. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(86)90135-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2015. Hardness of easy problems: Basing hardness on popular conjectures such as the strong exponential time hypothesis (invited talk). In 10th International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IPEC’15) (LIPIcs), Thore Husfeldt and Iyad A. Kanj (Eds.), Vol. 43. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 17--29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.IPEC.2015.17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Virginia Vassilevska Williams and Richard Ryan Williams. 2018. Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix, and triangle problems. J. ACM 65, 5 (2018), 27:1--27:38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3186893Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Richard Ryan Williams. 2005. A new algorithm for optimal 2-constraint satisfaction and its implications. Theor. Comput. Sci. 348, 2--3 (2005), 357--365. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2005.09.023Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Richard Ryan Williams. 2014. Faster all-pairs shortest paths via circuit complexity. In Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’14), David B. Shmoys (Ed.). ACM, 664--673. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2591796.2591811Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Richard Ryan Williams. 2018. Counting solutions to polynomial systems via reductions. In 1st Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA’18) USA (OASICS), Raimund Seidel (Ed.), Vol. 61. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 6:1--6:15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.SOSA.2018.6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Richard Ryan Williams and Huacheng Yu. 2014. Finding orthogonal vectors in discrete structures. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’14), Chandra Chekuri (Ed.). SIAM, 1867--1877. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973402.135Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Fine-Grained Reductions from Approximate Counting to Decision

        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 13, Issue 2
          June 2021
          144 pages
          ISSN:1942-3454
          EISSN:1942-3462
          DOI:10.1145/3450495
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 10 February 2021
          • Accepted: 1 November 2020
          • Revised: 1 August 2020
          • Received: 1 January 2019
          Published in toct Volume 13, 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

        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!