Suppose we are given an oracle that claims to approximate the permanent for most matrices X, where X is chosen from the Gaussian ensemble (the matrix entries are i.i.d. univariate complex Gaussians). Can we test that the oracle satisfies this claim? This paper gives a polynomial-time algorithm for the task.

The oracle-testing problem is of interest because a recent paper of Aaronson and Arkhipov showed that if there is a polynomial-time algorithm for simulating boson-boson interactions in quantum mechanics, then an approximation oracle for the permanent (of the type described above) exists in BPP NP . Since computing the permanent of even 0/1 matrices is #P-complete, this seems to demonstrate more computational power in quantum mechanics than Shor’s factoring algorithm does. However, unlike factoring, which is in NP, it was unclear previously how to test the correctness of an approximation oracle for the permanent, and this is the contribution of the paper.

The technical difficulty overcome here is that univariate polynomial self-correction, which underlies similar oracle-testing algorithms for permanent over \(\textit{finite fields}\) —and whose discovery led to a revolution in complexity theory—does not seem to generalize to complex (or even, real) numbers. We believe that this tester will motivate further progress on understanding the permanent of Gaussian matrices.


Additive Approximation Oracle Access Constant Factor Approximation Algorithm Gaussian Ensemble Interactive Proof System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aaronson, S., Arkhipov, A.: The computational complexity of linear optics. In: Fortnow, L., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.) Proc. 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 333–342. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of computing the permanent. Theor. Comp. Sci. 8(2), 189–201 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shor, P.W.: Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proc. 35th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 124–134. IEEE Computer Society (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broder, A.Z.: How hard is to marry at random (on the approximation of the permanent). In: Hartmanis, J. (ed.) Proc. 18th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 50–58. ACM (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jerrum, M., Sinclair, A.: Approximating the permanent. SIAM J. on Comput. 18(6), 1149–1178 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jerrum, M., Sinclair, A., Vigoda, E.: A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with nonnegative entries. J. ACM 51(4), 671–697 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gemmell, P., Lipton, R.J., Rubinfeld, R., Sudan, M., Wigderson, A.: Self-testing/correcting for polynomials and for approximate functions. In: Koutsougeras, C., Vitter, J.S. (eds.) Proc. 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 32–42. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gemmell, P., Sudan, M.: Highly resilient correctors for polynomials. Inform. Process. Lett. 43(4), 169–174 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cai, J.-Y., Pavan, A., Sivakumar, D.: On the Hardness of Permanent. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 90–99. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lund, C., Fortnow, L., Karloff, H., Nisan, N.: Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. J. ACM 39(4), 859–868 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arora, S., Khot, S.: Fitting algebraic curves to noisy data. J. Comp. Sys. Sci. 67(2), 325–340 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjeev Arora
    • 1
  • Arnab Bhattacharyya
    • 1
  • Rajsekar Manokaran
    • 1
  • Sushant Sachdeva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Center for Computational IntractabilityPrinceton UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations