Advertisement

Conditional Lower Bounds for Space/Time Tradeoffs

  • Isaac Goldstein
  • Tsvi Kopelowitz
  • Moshe Lewenstein
  • Ely Porat
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10389)

Abstract

In recent years much effort has been concentrated towards achieving polynomial time lower bounds on algorithms for solving various well-known problems. A useful technique for showing such lower bounds is to prove them conditionally based on well-studied hardness assumptions such as 3SUM, APSP, SETH, etc. This line of research helps to obtain a better understanding of the complexity inside P.

A related question asks to prove conditional space lower bounds on data structures that are constructed to solve certain algorithmic tasks after an initial preprocessing stage. This question received little attention in previous research even though it has potential strong impact.

In this paper we address this question and show that surprisingly many of the well-studied hard problems that are known to have conditional polynomial time lower bounds are also hard when concerning space. This hardness is shown as a tradeoff between the space consumed by the data structure and the time needed to answer queries. The tradeoff may be either smooth or admit one or more singularity points.

We reveal interesting connections between different space hardness conjectures and present matching upper bounds. We also apply these hardness conjectures to both static and dynamic problems and prove their conditional space hardness.

We believe that this novel framework of polynomial space conjectures can play an important role in expressing polynomial space lower bounds of many important algorithmic problems. Moreover, it seems that it can also help in achieving a better understanding of the hardness of their corresponding problems in terms of time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abboud, A., Backurs, A., Hansen, T.D., Williams, V.V., Zamir, O.: Subtree isomorphism revisited. In: Proc. of 27th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA, pp. 1256–1271 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abboud, A., Backurs, A., Williams, V.V.: If the current clique algorithms are optimal, so is Valiant’s parser. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pp. 98–117 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abboud, A., Backurs, A., Williams, V.V.: Quadratic-time hardness of LCS and other sequence similarity measures. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pp. 59–78 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abboud, A., Grandoni, F., Williams, V.V.: Subcubic equivalences between graph centrality problems, APSP and diameter. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, January 4–6, 2015, pp. 1681–1697 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abboud, A., Williams, V.V.: Popular conjectures imply strong lower bounds for dynamic problems. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 18–21, 2014, pp. 434–443 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abboud, A., Williams, V.V., Weimann, O.: Consequences of faster alignment of sequences. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8572, pp. 39–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43948-7_4 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abboud, A., Williams, V.V., Huacheng, Y.: Matching triangles and basing hardness on an extremely popular conjecture. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14–17, 2015, pp. 41–50 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwal, R.: The space-stretch-time tradeoff in distance oracles. In: Schulz, A.S., Wagner, D. (eds.) ESA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8737, pp. 49–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44777-2_5 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agarwal, R., Godfrey, B., Har-Peled, S.: Faster approximate distance queries and compact routing in sparse graphs. CoRR, abs/1201.2703 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agarwal, R., Godfrey, P.B., Har-Peled, S.: Approximate distance queries and compact routing in sparse graphs. In: 30th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, INFOCOM 2011, pp. 1754–1762 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amir, A., Chan, T.M., Lewenstein, M., Lewenstein, N.: On hardness of jumbled indexing. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8572, pp. 114–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43948-7_10 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Backurs, A., Indyk, P.: Edit distance cannot be computed in strongly subquadratic time (unless SETH is false). In: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14–17, 2015, pp. 51–58 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bringmann, K.: Why walking the dog takes time: Frechet distance has no strongly subquadratic algorithms unless SETH fails. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 18–21, 2014, pp. 661–670 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bringmann, K., Künnemann, M.: Quadratic conditional lower bounds for string problems and dynamic time warping. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan, T.M., Lewenstein, M.: Clustered integer 3SUM via additive combinatorics. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14–17, 2015, pp. 31–40 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen, H., Porat, E.: Fast set intersection and two-patterns matching. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(40–42), 3795–3800 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, H., Porat, E.: On the hardness of distance oracle for sparse graph. CoRR, abs/1006.1117 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gajentaan, A., Overmars, M.H.: On a class of \({O}(n^2)\) problems in computational geometry. Comput. Geom. 5, 165–185 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein, I., Kopelowitz, T., Lewenstein, M., Porat, E.: How hard is it to find (honest) witnesses? In: European Symposium on Algorithms, ESA 2016, pp. 45:1–45:16 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henzinger, M., Krinninger, S., Nanongkai, D., Saranurak, T.: Unifying and strengthening hardness for dynamic problems via the online matrix-vector multiplication conjecture. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14–17, 2015, pp. 21–30 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holm, J., Rotenberg, E., Thorup, M.: Planar reachability in linear space and constant time. In: 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2015, Berkeley, CA, USA, October 17–20, 2015, pp. 370–389 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kopelowitz, T., Pettie, S., Porat, E.: Dynamic set intersection. In: Dehne, F., Sack, J.-R., Stege, U. (eds.) WADS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9214, pp. 470–481. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21840-3_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kopelowitz, T., Pettie, S., Porat, E.: Higher lower bounds from the 3SUM conjecture. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2016, Arlington, VA, USA, January 10–12, 2016, pp. 1272–1287 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larsen, K.G., Munro, J.I., Nielsen, J.S., Thankachan, S.V.: On hardness of several string indexing problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 582, 74–82 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patrascu, M.: Towards polynomial lower bounds for dynamic problems. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, June 5–8, 2010, pp. 603–610 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patrascu, M.: Unifying the landscape of cell-probe lower bounds. SIAM J. Comput. 40(3), 827–847 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patrascu, M., Roditty, L.: Distance oracles beyond the Thorup-Zwick bound. SIAM J. Comput. 43(1), 300–311 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patrascu, M., Roditty, L., Thorup, M.: A new infinity of distance oracles for sparse graphs. In: 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2012, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, October 20–23, 2012, pp. 738–747 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patrascu, M., Williams, R.: On the possibility of faster SAT algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2010, Austin, Texas, USA, January 17–19, 2010, pp. 1065–1075 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Williams, V.V., Williams, R.: Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix and triangle problems. In: 51th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2010, October 23–26, 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 645–654 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isaac Goldstein
    • 1
  • Tsvi Kopelowitz
    • 2
  • Moshe Lewenstein
    • 1
  • Ely Porat
    • 1
  1. 1.Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations