Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published bySelena Stickel Modified over 3 years ago

1
COMPLEXITY THEORY CSci 5403 LECTURE XVI: COUNTING PROBLEMS AND RANDOMIZED REDUCTIONS

2
Definition. #P is the class of functions ƒ such that there exists a polytime TM M where ƒ(x) = |{ y : M(x,y) accepts }| Example. #SAT( ) = # satisfying assignments to. Definition. ƒ is #P-hard iff #P µ FP ƒ. Definition. ƒ is #P-complete iff #P µ FP ƒ and ƒ 2 #P. Theorem. (Shocking!) #SAT is #P-complete.

3
Theorem. The following counting problems are parsimoniously equivalent: #PERFECT BPMATCH: Given: bipartite graph G = (U,V,E) where E µ U £ V Output: # of perfect matchings in G. #CYCLE COVER: Given: directed graph G Output: the number of cycle covers in G. MATRIX PERMANENT: Given: n£n 0-1 matrix A Output: the permanent of A, i n a i, (i).

4
Theorem. PERMANENT is #P-Complete. Proof. We show that #3SAT µ FP #CYCLE COVER. The reduction has 3 gadget types: choice, clause, and XOR.

5
CLAUSE GADGETS For each clause (x Ç y Ç z) include the subgraph: No cycle cover can include all three outer edges. For each subset of the outer edges, exactly one cycle cover includes that subset. x y z

6
CHOICE GADGETS For each variable x i include the subgraph: There are exactly two cycle covers, one per outer edge. They correspond to the choices of x i.

7
XOR GADGETS A clause gadget outer edge is connected to its choice gadget outer edge by an XOR gadget: An XOR gadget is a clever device that forces any cycle cover to use exactly one of the edges. If P NP, can we implement an XOR gadget?

8
XOR GADGETS II A clause gadget outer edge is connected to its choice gadget outer edge by an XOR gadget: An XOR gadget is a clever device that multiplies the number of cycle covers using exactly one of the edges by 4, and the number using both edges by M. #SAT( ϕ ) = #CYCLE-COVER(G) mod M / 4 m

9
WEIGHTED XOR GADGETS For a weighted graph G and cycle cover C, the weight of C is the product of the edge weights. 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 a b d c 2 3 Define # WCYCLE-COVER (G) = C weight(C).

10
Removing negative weights: Let m = # of XOR gadgets in the resulting graph. Each satisfying assignment corresponds to 4 m total weight, and there are 2 m assignments. So the total weight is 2 3m. Set M = 2 4m +1. Then 2 4m -1 (mod M). Replace each -1 with 2 4m and take the result mod M. = 3 × # clauses

11
Simulating weights: 2 u v 3 u v 2 4m u v u v u v … u v 4m

12
Recap: We showed how to transform a 3cnf into a graph G such that #3SAT ( ) = ( #CYCLE-COVER (G) mod 2 4m +1)/4 m Thus #3SAT FP #CYCLE-COVER. Since #3SAT is #P-Complete, so is #CYCLE-COVER. Also #P-complete: PERMANENT, #PERFECT BPMATCH, #IMPERFECT BPMATCH, and #MONOTONE 2SAT

13
TODAS THEOREM Theorem. PH P #P. Proof Outline. 1.Define the class P, prove the Valiant- Vazirani theorem: NP RP P. 2. Extend the proof idea to show that PH RP P. 3. Use a #P oracle to derandomize. (Not hard)

14
Two related problems, and a complexity class: Definition. USAT is the promise problem given by: USAT YES = { : !x. (x) = 1 } USAT NO = { : x. (x) = 0 } There is exactly one x Definition. ©SAT = { Á | © x Á(x) = 1 } Definition. L 2 ©P iff 9 polytime NTM M such that x 2 L, © y M(x,y) = 1. Proposition. ©P P #P. Proposition. ©SAT is ©P-Complete. Proposition. USAT YES ©SAT.

15
Theorem (Valiant-Vazirani). SAT RP USAT. (Note we then have NP RP P.) Proof. We show how to transform a formula Á Ã where: Á 2 3SAT ) Pr[Ã 2 USAT] ¸ 1/8n Á 3SAT ) Pr[Ã 2 USAT] = 0 Querying the USAT oracle on the resulting formula and returning its result gives the RP algorithm. Given Á how do we construct Ã?

16
Lemma. Let H be a pairwise-independent family of hash functions h : {0,1} n {0,1} k and S {0,1} n, with 2 k-2 |S| 2 k-1. Then Pr h H [ !x S. h(x)=0 k ] 1/8. Proof. For any fixed xx S, we have: Pr[h(x) = 0] = 1/2 k and Pr[h(x)=0 h(x)=0] = 1/2 2k. Thus Pr[ xx. h(x)=0 h(x)=0] |S| 2 /2 2k+1 And Pr[ x.h(x)=0] |S|/2 k - |S| 2 /2 2k+1 So Pr[ !x S. h(x)=0] |S|/2 k - |S| 2 /2 2k 1/8. h isolates x

17
Lemma. Let x 1 x 2 {0,1} n, y 1,y 2 {0,1} k and pick M R {0,1} n×k, z R {0,1} k. Then Pr[Mx 1 +z=y 1 mod 2 Mx 2 +z=y 2 mod 2] = 1/2 2k. Proof. Let x 1 and x 2 be different in row i. Then Pr[Mx 1 +z=y 1 Mx 2 +z=y 2 ] = Pr[M i +z=y 1 z=y 2 ]=1/2 2k. Lemma. Given M,z, there is a cnf Â M,z (x,y) of size O(kn) that has one satisfying assignment for each x such Mx+z = 0 mod 2. Proof. Convert a tree of XORs circuit to a CNF.

18
Returning to Valiant-Vazirani, the RP algorithm is: 1.Pick k R {2,…,n+1}. 2.Pick M,z R {0,1} (n+1)×k. 3.Accept iff Á Æ Â M,z (x,y) USAT. If Á is unsatisfiable, we never accept. If Á is satisfiable, then let S = {x : Á(x)=1}; for some k {2,…,n+1}, 2 k-2 |S| 2 k-1. We pick this k with probability 1/n. If we pick the right k, we have probability at least 1/8 of picking M,z that isolate a satisfying x. Then Á Æ Â M,z (x,y) has one satisfying assignment.

19
Theorem. PH RP P. Proof. Recall that QSAT i = {Á | 9x 1 8x 2 …Q i x i.Á(x 1,x 2,…,x i ) } is Σ i complete. We will give a randomized algorithm to convert Á into a formula Ã such that Á 2 QSAT i ) Pr[Ã 2 ©SAT ] ¸ 1-δ Á QSAT i ) Pr[Ã 2 ©SAT ] = 0 The algorithm works in i stages; each stage removes a quantifier correctly with probability at least 1-δ/i.

20
Suppose we are at stage j and have the formula © z 9x j 8x j+1... Q i x i Á. This is wlog, since we can replace x.P(x) by ¬ x.¬P(x). We produce a formula Ã such that © z,x 8y j+1 9y j+2...Q i y i.Ã, © z 9x j 8x j+1...Q i x i.Á Idea: the Valiant-Vazirani reduction takes sentence σ = 9x.Á(x) and outputs a sentence τ = © x,y Ã(x,y) that is equivalent with probability at least 1/8n. repeat m = 8n ln(2 |z| × i/δ) times to get τ 1 …τ m. Then Pr[ k. τ k (z) σ(z)] 1 – δ/i2 |z|.

21
Since for any z, Pr[( i τ i (z)) σ(z)] δ/i2 |z|, we have Pr[ z ( i τ i (z)) z σ(z)] δ/i. To finish the proof, we need to convert a sentence z (τ 1 (z) τ 2 (z) … τ m (z)) where each τ i has the form x (x) y.Á(x,y,z), to an equivalent prenex form, x,z y. ϑ (x,y,z) Since x (x) y.Á(x,y,z) x y. (x) Á(x,y,z), we only consider the form z (( x α(z,x)) ( x β(z,x))

22
Lemma. For any formulae α(x),β(x), there exist formulae (α×β) and (α+β) such that ( x α(x)) ( x β(x)) x,y (α×β)(x,y) ( x α(x)) ( x β(x)) x,y ((α+1)×(β+1)+1)(x,y) For a partially quantified formula γ, let #γ be the number of assignments to free variables where γ=1. Proof. Let (α×β)(x,y) = (α(x) β(y)), (α+β)(x,y) = (y=0 α(x)) (y=1 β(x)) Then #(α×β) = #α #β and #(α+β) = #α + #β. Thus the final expression is z (x …x m ) ((τ 1 +1)×(τ 2 +1)×…×(τ m +1) + 1)(x 1,…,x m )

23
CS5403.info

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.

INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on supreme court of india Ppt on alternative sources of energy vs fossil fuels Resource allocation ppt on cloud computing Ppt on air pollution control act Ppt on crime file system Ppt on reflection in c# Free ppt on moving coil galvanometer principle Ppt on 4g lte Ppt on self management skills Ppt on tcp/ip protocol suite tutorial