Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Hardness Self-Amplification from Feasible Hard-...

Avatar for Nobutaka Shimizu Nobutaka Shimizu
November 03, 2022

Hardness Self-Amplification from Feasible Hard-Core Sets

FOCS2022

Avatar for Nobutaka Shimizu

Nobutaka Shimizu

November 03, 2022
Tweet

More Decks by Nobutaka Shimizu

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. Nobutaka Shimizu Tokyo Institute of Technology Hardness Self-Amplification from Feasible

    Hard-Core Sets Shuichi Hirahara National Institute of Informatics FOCS2022
  2. • : class of algorithms (or circuits) • is worst-case

    hard (for ) if • is -hard if ‣ is drawn from some distribution (in this talk, uniform distribution) 𝒞 f 𝒞 ∀A ∈ 𝒞 , ∃x, A(x) ≠ f(x) f δ ∀A ∈ 𝒞 , Pr x [A(x) ≠ f(x)] ≥ δ x Average-Case Complexity 2
  3. • : class of algorithms (or circuits) • is worst-case

    hard (for ) if • is -hard if ‣ is drawn from some distribution (in this talk, uniform distribution) 𝒞 f 𝒞 ∀A ∈ 𝒞 , ∃x, A(x) ≠ f(x) f δ ∀A ∈ 𝒞 , Pr x [A(x) ≠ f(x)] ≥ δ x Average-Case Complexity 3 perfect score is difficult
  4. • : class of algorithms (or circuits) • is worst-case

    hard (for ) if • is -hard if ‣ is drawn from some distribution (in this talk, uniform distribution) 𝒞 f 𝒞 ∀A ∈ 𝒞 , ∃x, A(x) ≠ f(x) f δ ∀A ∈ 𝒞 , Pr x [A(x) ≠ f(x)] ≥ δ x Average-Case Complexity 4 perfect score is difficult even 50% is difficult
  5. •Goal : construct a -hard for •Under “plausible” assumption ‣

    ‣ #NSETH •cryptography, derandomization, etc δ f δ ≈ 1 𝖯 ≠ 𝖭 𝖯 Two Directions 5 ᶃ Explicit Construction ᶄ Practical Hardness of Problems •Target: specific over specific input distribution ‣ Find a maximum clique in ‣ Random SAT • efficient algo that succeeds on many inputs? •Avoid the pessimism of worst-case analysis f G(n, p) ∃ Are techniques in ᶃ useful for ᶄ ?
  6. • : Boolean function ‣ is weakly hard if is

    -hard ‣ is strongly hard if is -hard f f f ϵ f f (1/2 − δ) Weak and Strong Hardness 6 Constant algo ( or ) succeeds on 1/2-fraction of inputs. A(x) = 1 A(x) = 0
  7. • : Boolean function ‣ is weakly hard if is

    -hard ‣ is strongly hard if is -hard •Goal of Direction ᶃ : explicit construction of strongly hard f f f ϵ f f (1/2 − δ) f Weak and Strong Hardness 7 strongly hard worst-case hard
  8. •Hardness Amplification ‣ Transform weakly hard into strongly hard f

    g Hardness Amplification 8 hardness amplification worst-case to average-case reduction strongly hard worst-case hard weakly hard
  9. •Hardness Amplification ‣ Transform weakly hard into strongly hard •XOR

    lemma ‣ , where are independent •Derandomized XOR lemma ‣ , where have some correlation •Typically, is artificial ‣ They might be not suitable for Direction ᶄ without any modification f g g(x1 , …, xk ) = f(x1 ) ⊕ … ⊕ f(xk ) x1 , …, xk ∼ {0,1}n g(x1 , …, xk ) = f(x1 ) ⊕ … ⊕ f(xk ) x1 , …, xk g Hardness Amplification 9 [Yao 82][Levin 87] [Impagliazzo, Wigderson, 97]
  10. •Framework of Hardness Self-Amplification ‣ i.e., hardness amplification with •Application:

    Hardness amplification for Natural Problems ‣ Triangle counting mod 2 ‣ Online Vector-Matrix-Vector Multiplication over g = f 𝔽 2 Our Contribution 11
  11. •Framework of Hardness Self-Amplification ‣ i.e., hardness amplification with •Application:

    Hardness amplification for Natural Problems ‣ Triangle counting mod 2 ‣ Online Vector-Matrix-Vector Multiplication over •Ingredient: New derandomized XOR lemma based on ‣ Feasible hard-core set : Generalization of hard-core set ‣ Computational design : Generalization of combinatorial design g = f 𝔽 2 Our Contribution 12 [Impagliazzo, 1995] [Nisan, Wigderson, 1994]
  12. •Framework of Hardness Self-Amplification ‣ i.e., hardness amplification with •Application:

    Hardness amplification for Natural Problems ‣ Triangle counting mod 2 ‣ Online Vector-Matrix-Vector Multiplication over •Ingredient: New derandomized XOR lemma based on ‣ Feasible hard-core set : Generalization of hard-core set ‣ Computational design : Generalization of combinatorial design g = f 𝔽 2 Our Contribution 13 [Impagliazzo, 1995] [Nisan, Wigderson, 1994]
  13. •k-clique counting •General subgraph •subgraph counting mod 2 Subgraph Counting

    on Random Graphs 14 [Goldreich and Rothblum, 2018] [Boix-Adserà, Brennan, Bresler, 2019] [Dalirrooyfard, Lincoln, Williams, 2020] [Boix-Adserà, Brennan, Bresler, 2019] [Goldreich, 2020] [Hirahara, Shimizu, 2021]
  14. •k-clique counting •General subgraph •subgraph counting mod 2 • If

    Triangle Counting is worst-case hard for -time algo, then it is -hard (over Erdős–Rényi graph) • If Triangle Counting Mod 2 is worst-case hard for -time algo, then it is -hard for nω−ϵ 1/polylog(n) nω−ϵ δ δ = 2−9 ≈ 0.000004 Subgraph Counting on Random Graphs 15 [Goldreich and Rothblum, 2018] [Boix-Adserà, Brennan, Bresler, 2019] [Dalirrooyfard, Lincoln, Williams, 2020] [Boix-Adserà, Brennan, Bresler, 2019] [Goldreich, 2020] [Hirahara, Shimizu, 2021] Previous : weak hardness from wrs-hardness [Boix-Adserà, Brennan, Bresler, 2019] [Boix-Adserà, Brennan, Bresler, 2019] [Goldreich, 2020]
  15. This Work: Triangle Counting Mod 2 16 Theorem (informal) Let

    be any constants. If is -hard for small circuits, then is -hard for small circuits. In particular, is -hard if it is worst-case hard. δ, ϵ > 0 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 δ 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 (1/2 − ϵ) 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 (1/2 − ϵ) • … #triangles mod 2 in a tripartite graph 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 : {0,1}3n2 → {0,1} vertices n vertices n vertices n Each possible edge appears with prob 1/2 Tripartite ER Graph
  16. • … weakly hard function •For , let = -th

    block ( ) •Define by f: {0,1}n → {0,1} x ∈ {0,1}kn xi i |xi | = n g: {0,1}nk → {0,1} XOR Lemma 18 g(x) = f(x1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(xk ) x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x = If is -hard, then is -hard for some . f δ g (1/2 − ϵ) k = O(log(1/ϵ)/δ) Theorem (informal) [Yao 84][Levin 87]
  17. • … weakly hard function • … set family (

    , ) •For , let •Define by f: {0,1}n → {0,1} 𝒮 = {S1 , …, Sk } Si ⊆ [ℓ] |Si | = n x ∈ {0,1}ℓ xi = x| Si g: {0,1}ℓ → {0,1} Derandomized XOR Lemma of NW 19 x1 x = g(x) = f(x1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(xk ) x2 x3 x4 Suppose is a combinatorial design. If is -hard, then is -hard for some . 𝒮 = (Si ) f δ g (1/2 − ϵ) k = k(δ, ϵ) Theorem (informal) [Impagliazzo, Wigderson, 1997]
  18. • … weakly hard function • … set family (

    , ) •For , let •Define by f: {0,1}n → {0,1} 𝒮 = {S1 , …, Sk } Si ⊆ [ℓ] |Si | = n x ∈ {0,1}ℓ xi = x| Si g: {0,1}ℓ → {0,1} Derandomized XOR Lemma of NW 20 x1 x = g(x) = f(x1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(xk ) x2 x3 x4 Suppose is a combinatorial design. If is -hard, then is -hard for some . 𝒮 = (Si ) f δ g (1/2 − ϵ) k = k(δ, ϵ) [Impagliazzo, Wigderson, 1997] Theorem (informal) is a -combinatorial design if for 𝒮 d |Si ∩ Sj | ≤ d ∀i ≠ j
  19. • … weakly hard function • … set family (

    , ) •For , let •Define by f: {0,1}n → {0,1} 𝒮 = {S1 , …, Sk } Si ⊆ [ℓ] |Si | = n x ∈ {0,1}ℓ xi = x| Si g: {0,1}ℓ → {0,1} New Derandomized XOR Lemma 21 x1 x = g(x) = f(x1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(xk ) x2 x3 x4 Suppose is a computational design. If is -hard, then is -hard for some . 𝒮 = (Si ) f δ g (1/2 − ϵ) k = k(δ, ϵ) Theorem (informal, this work)
  20. • … weakly hard function • … set family (

    , ) •For , let •Define by f: {0,1}n → {0,1} 𝒮 = {S1 , …, Sk } Si ⊆ [ℓ] |Si | = n x ∈ {0,1}ℓ xi = x| Si g: {0,1}ℓ → {0,1} New Derandomized XOR Lemma 22 x1 x = g(x) = f(x1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(xk ) x2 x3 x4 Suppose is a computational design. If is -hard, then is -hard for some . 𝒮 = (Si ) f δ g (1/2 − ϵ) k = k(δ, ϵ) Theorem (informal, this work) Roughly speaking, is a computational design if has a small “computational cost” 𝒮 Si ∩ Sj
  21. • … weakly hard function • … set family (

    , ) •For , let •Define by f: {0,1}n → {0,1} 𝒮 = {S1 , …, Sk } Si ⊆ [ℓ] |Si | = n x ∈ {0,1}ℓ xi = x| Si g: {0,1}ℓ → {0,1} New Derandomized XOR Lemma 23 x1 x = g(x) = f(x1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(xk ) x2 x3 x4 Suppose is a computational design. If is -hard, then is -hard for some . 𝒮 = (Si ) f δ g (1/2 − ϵ) k = k(δ, ϵ) Theorem (informal, this work) is a computational design for if can be computed by a small circuit given in advance. 𝒮 f f(xi ) x| Si ∖Sj
  22. Derandomized XOR and TriParity 24 • … #triangles mod 2

    in a tripartite graph • : tripartite set 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 : {0,1}3n2 → {0,1} U, V, W V W U
  23. Derandomized XOR and TriParity 25 • … #triangles mod 2

    in a tripartite graph • : tripartite set • Divide them into 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 : {0,1}3n2 → {0,1} U, V, W Ui , Vj , Wk U1 U0 V1 V0 W1 W0
  24. • … #triangles mod 2 in a tripartite graph •

    : tripartite set • Divide them into • For , let 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 : {0,1}3n2 → {0,1} U, V, W Ui , Vj , Wk (i, j, k) ∈ {0,1}3 Gijk = G[Ui , Vj , Wk ] Derandomized XOR and TriParity 26 𝖳𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺𝗋𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 (G) = ⨁ (i,j,k)∈{0,1}3 𝖳𝗋 𝗂𝖯𝖺 𝗋𝗂𝗍 𝗒 (Gijk ) U1 U0 V1 V0 W1 W0
  25. • … #triangles mod 2 in a tripartite graph •

    : tripartite set • Divide them into • For , let 𝖳 𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺 𝗋 𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 : {0,1}3n2 → {0,1} U, V, W Ui , Vj , Wk (i, j, k) ∈ {0,1}3 Gijk = G[Ui , Vj , Wk ] Derandomized XOR and TriParity 27 𝖳𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺𝗋𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 (G) = ⨁ (i,j,k)∈{0,1}3 𝖳𝗋 𝗂𝖯𝖺 𝗋𝗂𝗍 𝗒 (Gijk ) f(x) = f(x| S1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ f(x| St ) U1 U0 V1 V0 W1 W0
  26. • is NOT a combinatorial design ( and shares -

    edges) • Actually, is a computational design! (Gijk ) G000 G001 U0 V0 (Gijk ) Derandomized XOR and TriParity 28 𝖳𝗋 𝗂 𝖯 𝖺𝗋𝗂 𝗍 𝗒 (G) = ⨁ (i,j,k)∈{0,1}3 𝖳𝗋 𝗂𝖯𝖺 𝗋𝗂𝗍 𝗒 (Gijk ) U1 U0 V1 V0 W1 W0
  27. DXOR and Hard-core Set 30 Theorem (hard-core lemma; Impagliazzo 95)

    If is -hard for size , then there is a set of such that is -hard over for size . f δ S H ⊆ {0,1}n |H| ≥ δ ⋅ 2n f (1/2 − ϵ) H O(ϵ2δ2S) • Such is called hard-core set • On a hard-core set, is strongly hard • We can derive DXOR of NW from hard-core lemma H f [Hearly, Vadhan, Viola, 2006]
  28. DXOR: Roadmap 31 is not -hard, where f(x1 ) ⊕

    … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si
  29. DXOR: Roadmap 32 is not -hard, where f(x1 ) ⊕

    … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) fH (x) = { random bit if x ∈ H, f(x) otherwise . A circuit distinguishes and if C 𝒟 1 𝒟 2 | Pr x∼ 𝒟 1 [C(x) = 1] − Pr x∼ 𝒟 2 [C(x) = 1]| ≥ ϵ
  30. DXOR: Roadmap 33 is not -hard, where f(x1 ) ⊕

    … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument for some i
  31. DXOR: Roadmap 34 is not -hard, where f(x1 ) ⊕

    … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument combinatorial design we can distinguish and f(x) fH (x) for some i
  32. DXOR: Roadmap 35 is not -hard, where f(x1 ) ⊕

    … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument combinatorial design we can distinguish and f(x) fH (x) next-bit predictor is not -hard over f(x) (1/2 − ϵ) H contradict to hard-core lemma! for some i
  33. DXOR using Computational Design 36 is not -hard, where f(x1

    ) ⊕ … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument computational design next-bit predictor is not -hard over f(x) (1/2 − ϵ) H we can distinguish and f(x) fH (x) for some i
  34. DXOR using Computational Design 37 is not -hard, where f(x1

    ) ⊕ … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument computational design is not -hard over f(x) (1/2 − ϵ) H we can distinguish and using -oracle f(x) fH (x) H next-bit predictor for some i
  35. DXOR using Computational Design 38 is not -hard, where f(x1

    ) ⊕ … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument computational design is not -hard over for -oracle circuits f(x) (1/2 − ϵ) H H we can distinguish and using -oracle f(x) fH (x) H next-bit predictor for some i
  36. DXOR using Computational Design 39 is not -hard, where f(x1

    ) ⊕ … ⊕ f(xk ) (1/2 − ϵ) xi = x| Si we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xk )) (fH (x1 ), …, fH (xk )) we can distinguish and (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), fH (xi ), fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) , fH (xi+1 ), …, fH (xk )) f(xi ) (f(x1 ), …, f(xi−1 ), hybrid argument computational design is not -hard over for -oracle circuits f(x) (1/2 − ϵ) H H we can distinguish and using -oracle f(x) fH (x) H we need to modify hard-core lemma next-bit predictor for some i
  37. DXOR and Hard-core Set 40 Theorem (feasible hard-core lemma; informal)

    If is -hard for size , then there is a set of such that is -hard over for size trapdoor -oracle circuits. f δ S H ⊆ {0,1}n |H| ≥ δ ⋅ 2n f (1/2 − ϵ) H 2−poly(1/ϵ,1/δ)S H • We call such feasible hard-core set • trapdoor oracle circuit for “ can query whenever computes ” • Proof : Boosting algo of [Barak, Hardt, Kale, 09] H CH f C H(q) C f(q) serves as a “key” for the “trapdoor” f(q) H(q)
  38. •counting other subgraphs (k-clique, k-cycle, etc) •mod 3? mod ?

    •nonuniform model (circuit) → uniform model (algorithm) p Open Problems 41