computational complexity

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 345–383 | Cite as

Is Valiant–Vazirani’s isolation probability improvable?

  • Holger Dell
  • Valentine Kabanets
  • Dieter van Melkebeek
  • Osamu Watanabe
Article

Abstract

The Isolation Lemma of Valiant and Vazirani (Theor Comput Sci 47:85–93, 1986) provides an efficient procedure for isolating a satisfying assignment of a given satisfiable circuit: Given a Boolean circuit C on n input variables, the procedure outputs a new circuit C′ on the same n input variables such that (i) every satisfying assignment of C′ also satisfies C and (ii) if C is satisfiable, then C′ has exactly one satisfying assignment. In particular, if C is unsatisfiable, then (i) implies that C′ is unsatisfiable. The Valiant–Vazirani procedure is randomized, and when C is satisfiable, it produces a uniquely satisfiable circuit C′ with probability Ω(1/n).

Is it possible to have an efficient deterministic witness-isolating procedure? Or, at least, is it possible to improve the success probability of a randomized procedure to a large constant? We prove that there exists a non-uniform randomized polynomial-time witness-isolating procedure with success probability bigger than 2/3 if and only ifNP\({\subseteq }\)P/poly. We establish similar results for other variants of witness isolation, such as reductions that remove all but an odd number of satisfying assignments of a satisfiable circuit.

We also consider a blackbox setting of witness isolation that generalizes the setting of the Valiant–Vazirani Isolation Lemma and give an upper bound of O(1/n) on the success probability for a natural class of randomized witness-isolating procedures.

Keywords

Isolation Lemma unique satisfiability parity satisfiability derandomization 

Subject Classification

68Q15 68Q17 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Leonard M. Adleman (1978). Two Theorems on Random Polynomial Time. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 1978, 75–83.Google Scholar
  2. Sanjeev Arora & Boaz Barak (2009). Computational Complexity – A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-42426-4.Google Scholar
  3. Vikraman Arvind & Partha Mukhopadhyay (2008). Derandomizing the isolation lemma and lower bounds for circuit size. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop, APPROX 2008, and 12th International Workshop, RANDOM 2008 on Approximation, Randomization and Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX ’08 RANDOM ’08, 276–289. Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Shai Ben-David, Benny Chor, OdedGoldreich & Michael Luby (1992) On the theory of average-case complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 44(2): 193–21MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Suresh Chari, PankajRohatgi & Aravind Srinivasan (1995) Randomness-optimal unique element isolation with applications to perfect matching and related problems. SIAM Journal on Computing 24(5): 1036–1050MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holger Dell, Valentine Kabanets, Dieter van Melkebeek & Osamu Watanabe (2012). Is Valiant–Vazirani’s isolation probability improvable? In Proceedings of the 27th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2012, 10–20.Google Scholar
  7. Sanjay Gupta (1998). Isolating an odd number of elements and applications in complexity theory. Theory of Computing Systems 31, 27–40.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lane A. Hemaspaandra, Ashish V. Naik, Mitsunori Ogihara & Alan L. Selman (1996). Computing solutions uniquely collapses the polynomial hierarchy. SIAM Journal on Computing bf 25(4), 697–708.Google Scholar
  9. Wassily Hoeffding (1963). Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association bf 58(301), 13–30.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets & Avi Wigderson (2002). In search of an easy witness: Exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time. Journal of Computer and System Sciencesbf 65(4), 672–694.Google Scholar
  11. Valentine Kabanets & Russell Impagliazzo (2004). Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds. Computational Complexity bf 13(1–2), 1–46.Google Scholar
  12. Akinori Kawachi, Benjamin Rossman & Osamu Watanabe (2012). Query complexity and error tolerance of witness finding algorithms. Tech report TR12-002, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC).URL http://eccc.hpi-web.de/report/2012/002.
  13. Adam R. Klivans & Dieter van Melkebeek (2002). Graph nonisomorphism has subexponential size proofs unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. SIAM Journal on Computing bf 31(5), 1501–1526.Google Scholar
  14. Ker-I Ko (1983). On self-reducibility and weak P-selectivity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences bf 26, 209–211.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ketan Mulmuley, Umesh V. Vazirani & Vijay V. Vazirani (1987). Matching is as easy as matrix inversion. Combinatorica bf 7(1), 105–113.Google Scholar
  16. Ashish V. Naik, Kenneth W. Regan & D. Sivakumar (1995). On quasilinear time complexity theory. Theoretical Computer Science bf 148(2), 325–349.Google Scholar
  17. Christos H. Papadimitriou (1994). Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-53082-7.Google Scholar
  18. Klaus Reinhardt & Eric Allender (2000). Making nondeterminism unambiguous. SIAM Journal on Computingbf 29(4), 1118–1131. ISSN 0097-5397.Google Scholar
  19. Alan L. Selman (1979). P-selective sets, tally languages, and the behavior of polynomial time reducibilities on NP. Mathematical Systems Theory bf 13, 55–65.Google Scholar
  20. Alan L. Selman (1994). A taxonomy of complexity classes of functions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences bf 48, 357–381.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seinosuke Toda (1991). PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM Journal on Computing bf 20(5), 865–877.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leslie G. Valiant & Vijay V. Vazirani (1986). NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoretical Computer Science bf 47, 85–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Dell
    • 1
  • Valentine Kabanets
    • 2
  • Dieter van Melkebeek
    • 1
  • Osamu Watanabe
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mathematical and Computing SciencesTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations