Papers for

complexity theory teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Approximate polynomial satisfiability and integral closure testing in counting hierarchy

Approximate Polynomial Satisfiability and Integral Closure Membership in the Counting Hierarchy

Abstract: Andrews, Garg, and Schost recently, in a breakthrough result, placed Hilbert's Nullstellensatz (HN) in the Counting Hierarchy ($\CH$) using constant-depth circuits for multivariate resultants. While HN deals with exact polynomial satisfiability, Guo, Saxena, and Sinhababu (CCC~2018; Theory of Computing~2019) introduced approximate polynomial satisfiability (APS) as a natural approximative analogue of polynomial system satisfiability. They proved its $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness and a $\PSPACE$ upper bound, and used APS to construct hitting sets for $\overline{\mathsf{VP}}$ in polynomial space, substantially narrowing the GCT chasm in geometric complexity theory. We place APS in the Counting Hierarchy for rational polynomials given by arithmetic circuits. Our proof combines Noether normalization with a geometric restriction on how points in the image of a polynomial map approach the origin, reducing APS to a test on multivariate resultants which allows solvability in $\CH$. It complements the independent and concurrent proofs of Balaji, Shirmohammadi, Tavenas, and Worrell, and Andrews, Garg, Oliveira, and Schost. Moreover, we also place integral closure membership testing in the Counting Hierarchy. Here, the question is whether a given polynomial $f$ is integral over $\C[f_1,\ldots,f_m]$. Our approach uses a global annihilator criterion and an effective degree bound to reduce non-integrality to APS in polynomial time.

Fri 30 OctComputational Complexity
The gist
This work deals with two complex problems about polynomials: knowing when a set of polynomial equations almost has a solution, and when a polynomial fits nicely inside a collection generated by other polynomials. The authors show that both problems can be solved within a complexity class called the Counting Hierarchy, which is known for capturing certain types of efficient computations. They do this by connecting geometric properties of polynomial maps with algebraic tests called resultants, making it easier to decide these questions. Their findings bring better understanding of the computational difficulty of approximate polynomial problems and related algebraic concepts.
Open → 2610.42138v1

Improving verification limits for hard lattice problems in NP intersect coNP

Improving the Constant in the Aharonov--Regev Theorem

Abstract: The Aharonov-Regev proof that $\mathrm{GapCVP}_{c\sqrt n}$ lies in $\mathsf{NP}\cap \mathsf{coNP}$ uses a verifier that tests dual lattice vectors; its proof gives $c=100$. We study this verifier through a linear program in which a certificate is modeled as a sample from a probability distribution on the dual lattice. This viewpoint gives an exact analysis of the close-target tests: adding gradient and Hessian checks increases the certified close radius from $σ^{-1}/4$ to $σ^{-1}\sqrt{3/16}$, and higher derivatives cannot improve it within this framework. With Gaussian certificates for far targets, we obtain $$\mathrm{GapCVP}_{c\sqrt n},\ \mathrm{GapSVP}_{c\sqrt n}\in \mathsf{NP} \cap\mathsf{coNP}$$ for every $c>2/(π\sqrt3)\approx0.3676$. An appendix gives a finite-bit implementation of the verifier. We also show that the Gaussian certificate is not always optimal and solve the unbounded-support program exactly for targets of order two, where its value is determined by the spectral capacity of an odd dual coset.

Wed 7 OctComputational Complexity
The gist
Some problems with lattices, which are grid-like mathematical structures, are hard to solve exactly but can be checked efficiently for close answers. Previous work showed that a specific verification test works up to a certain range, but with a high constant factor. The authors analyzed the test more precisely using mathematical programming and found ways to improve this constant significantly, allowing the verification method to work for smaller distances. This means that the known complexity classification for these lattice problems holds for a wider range of cases than before.
Open → 2610.09290v1