SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1911.02440

Fine-grained hardness of CVP(P) -- Everything that we can prove (and nothing else)

Abstract

We show a number of fine-grained hardness results for the Closest Vector Problem in the $\ell_p$ norm ($\mathrm{CVP}_p$), and its approximate and non-uniform variants. First, we show that $\mathrm{CVP}_p$ cannot be solved in $2^{(1-\varepsilon)n}$ time for all $p \notin 2\mathbb{Z}$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, assuming the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH). Second, we extend this by showing that there is no $2^{(1-\varepsilon)n}$-time algorithm for approximating $\mathrm{CVP}_p$ to within a constant factor $\gamma$ for such $p$ assuming a "gap" version of SETH, with an explicit relationship between $\gamma$, $p$, and the arity $k = k(\varepsilon)$ of the underlying hard CSP. Third, we show the same hardness result for (exact) $\mathrm{CVP}_p$ with preprocessing (assuming non-uniform SETH). For exact "plain" $\mathrm{CVP}_p$, the same hardness result was shown in [Bennett, Golovnev, and Stephens-Davidowitz FOCS 2017] for all but finitely many $p \notin 2\mathbb{Z}$, where the set of exceptions depended on $\varepsilon$ and was not explicit. For the approximate and preprocessing problems, only very weak bounds were known prior to this work. We also show that the restriction to $p \notin 2\mathbb{Z}$ is in some sense inherent. In particular, we show that no "natural" reduction can rule out even a $2^{3n/4}$-time algorithm for $\mathrm{CVP}_2$ under SETH. For this, we prove that the possible sets of closest lattice vectors to a target in the $\ell_2$ norm have quite rigid structure, which essentially prevents them from being as expressive as $3$-CNFs. We prove these results using techniques from many different fields, including complex analysis, functional analysis, additive combinatorics, and discrete Fourier analysis. E.g., along the way, we give a new (and tighter) proof of Szemer\'{e}di's cube lemma for the boolean cube.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Divesh Aggarwal, Huck Bennett, Alexander Golovnev, Noah Stephens-Davidowitz. 2019-11-06. Fine-grained hardness of CVP(P) -- Everything that we can prove (and nothing else). https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02440

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Computational Complexity of Holant Problems on 4-regular Graphs from the Stable Subgroup Sequence of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$

The Holant framework provides a general setting for studying counting problems and includes graph homomorphisms (\#GH) and counting constraint satisfaction problems (\#CSP) as special cases. Over the past twenty years, a series of computational complexity dichotomies have been established for Holant problems, but the classification for complex-valued signatures is still open. The main obstacle is the case in which all signatures have even arity. In this paper, we establish a dichotomy for Holant problems with a complex-valued 4-ary signature, which is a key base case for the full classification of Holant problems. We present a new strategy by introducing Schur's theorem, the classification of finite subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ and stable subgroup sequences into the proof. These new techniques are of independent interest.

cs.CC

Topology inside NC$^1$

We show that ACC$^0$ is precisely what can be computed with constant-width circuits of polynomial size and polylogarithmic genus. This extends a characterization given by Hansen, showing that planar constant-width circuits also characterize ACC$^0$. Thus polylogarithmic genus provides no additional computational power in this model. We consider other generalizations of planarity, including crossing number and thickness. We show that constant-width circuits of polynomial size and thickness two already suffice to capture all of NC$^1$.

cs.CC