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).
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Svante Janson, Tomasz Luczak, and Andrzej Rucinski. 2000. Random Graphs. Wiley. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118032718Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Larry J. Stockmeyer. 1985. On approximation algorithms for #P. SIAM J. Comput. 14, 4 (1985), 849--861. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/0214060Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
Fine-Grained Reductions from Approximate Counting to Decision
Recommendations
Fine-grained reductions from approximate counting to decision
STOC 2018: Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of ComputingIn this paper, 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 ...
Pseudorandomness for Approximate Counting and Sampling
We study computational procedures that use both randomness and nondeterminism. The goal of this paper is to derandomize such procedures under the weakest possible assumptions.
Our main technical contribution allows one to "boost" a given hardness ...
Derandomizing Arthur-Merlin Games and Approximate Counting Implies Exponential-Size Lower Bounds
CCC '10: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 25th Annual Conference on Computational ComplexityWe show that if Arthur-Merlin protocols can be derandomized, then there is a Boolean function computable in deterministic exponential-time with access to an $\bm{\NP}$ oracle, that cannot be computed by Boolean circuits of {\em exponential} size. More ...






Comments