On Norbert Blum’s claimed proof that P does not equal NP

Edited 8/16 to correct attributions to Alon and Boppana and to Tardos, thanks to an anonymous commenter for the correction

Yesterday, Norbert Blum posted a preprint with a claimed proof that {P\neq NP}. An incorrect comment that I made last night and corrected this morning caused a lot of confusion, so let me apologize by summarizing the claims in the paper.

Coincidentally, this week, there is an Oberwolfach workshop on proof complexity and circuit complexity, so I am confident that by the end of the week we will hear substantive comments on the technical claims in the paper.

Recall that if a decision problem is solvable by an algorithm running in time {t(n)} on inputs of length {n} then, for every {n}, it is also solved, on inputs of length {n}, by a circuit of size {O(t^2(n))}. Thus, if a problem is solvable in polynomial time it is also solvable by a family of polynomial size circuits (or, in short, it has polynomial circuit complexity).

The paper claims that Clique has exponential circuit complexity, and hence it has no polynomial time algorithm and {P\neq NP}. The argument leverages known results from monotone circuit complexity.

A monotone circuit is a boolean circuit that has only AND gates and OR gates, but does not have any NOT gates. A decision problem is a monotone problem if, for every fixed input length, it is solvable by a monotone circuit. For example, the problem to decide if a given {n}-vertex graph has a clique of size at least {\sqrt n} is a monotone problem (if the input graph is presented as a boolean adjacency matrix), and so is the problem of deciding if a given graph has a perfect matching.

In the 1980s, Razborov proved that Clique cannot be computed by polynomial size monotone circuits. Later Andreev proved that there is a monotone problem in NP that requires exponential size monotone circuits, and Tardos Alon and Boppana proved that Clique itself requires exponential size monotone circuits. At the time, it was conjectured that if a monotone problem is in P, then it is solvable by a family of polynomial size monotone circuits. Under this conjecture, Razborov’s result would imply that Clique is not in P, and hence {P\neq NP}.

Unfortunately, Razborov refuted this conjecture, by showing that the perfect matching problem, which is in P, does not have polynomial size monotone circuits. Tardos showed that the Alon-Boppana exponential lower bound for clique holds for any monotone function sandwiched between the clique number and the chromatic number of a graph, including the Lovasz Theta function. Since the Theta function is polynomial time computable, and hence has polynomial size circuits, this shows that the gap between monotone circuit complexity and general circuit complexity can be exponentially large. (See first comment below.)

Razborov’s proof of the Clique lower bound for monotone circuits introduced the powerful approximation method. Roughly speaking, his approach was to start from a hypothetical polynomial size family of monotone circuits for Clique, and, from that, build a family of approximating circuits, which are just DNF formulas. The approximating circuits constructed by his method do not solve the Clique problem in general, but they solve a “promise” version of the problem, that is, they solve Clique on a certain subset of graphs. Then Razborov finishes the argument by showing that the approximating circuits are so simple that it is impossible for them to even solve Clique on that subset of inputs, thus reaching a contradiction to the assumption that there are monotone polynomial size circuits for Clique. The approximation method, variously modified, was also used to prove the lower bounds for Andreev’s problem and for matching.

Tim Gowers wrote a wonderful exposition of Razborov’s method, trying to show how one would come up with the various ideas, rather than just presenting the proof step by step.

Berg and Ulfberg simplify the proofs of Razborov, Andreev and Tardos for Clique and Andreev’s problem (but not for matching) by showing how to construct an approximator that has both small DNF complexity and small CNF complexity. The stronger claim makes an inductive argument in the construction easier to establish.

(At this point, I should clarify that I have never properly studies these results, so I am probably getting some details wrong. Please post corrections in the comments.)

The main claim in Blum’s paper is Theorem 6, which claims that if polynomial-size monotone circuits for a monotone problem admit a “CNF-DNF approximator” for a promise restriction of the problem (like the Berg-Ulfberg one), then also general circuits for the same problem admit such an approximator. Thus, if the approximator does not exist, it not only follows that the monotone complexity of the problem is super-polynomial, but also the general circuit complexity of the problem is superpolynomial.

Together with the Berg-Ulfberg approximator for monotone circuits for Clique, this implies that Clique is not in P.

Now, what could possibly go wrong with this argument?

  • What about natural proofs?

    This argument can only applied to (certain) monotone problems, and monotone problems are a vanishing fraction of all problems, hence one does not have the “largeness” property of natural proofs, and the argument is not a natural proof. (This is noted in the paper.)

  • What about relativization and algebrization?

    The argument starts from a boolean circuit for a given problem. If one is given an oracle circuit, with gates that answer oracle queries, or give evaluation of a polynomial extension of the problem, the argument cannot be applied.

  • But this argument is lifting monotone circuit lower bounds to general circuit lower bounds, and so what about perfect matching, which has an exponential monotone circuit lower bound and a polynomial general circuit upper bound?

    It is not known how to make the known lower bound for matching work via a “CNF-DNF approximator” and the claims in the paper only concern monotone lower bounds proved in this way. (Edited to add: but what about the Lovasz theta function?)

  • But didn’t Razborov prove that the approximation method cannot prove a better-than-quadratic lower bound for general circuits?

    Like any no-go theorem, Razborov’s impossibility result makes some assumption on what it means to “apply the approximation method to general circuits” and Blum claims that the assumptions do not apply to his argument.

  • But where is the “heavy lifting” done? Shouldn’t every proof of a major result have one or more steps that are unlike anything done before?

    I don’t have a good answer to this question. All the work is done in the proof of Theorem 6, which is the construction of the approximator starting from an arbitrary circuit. Maybe the argument is right and the heavy lifting was in Razborov’s work and subsequent extension and simplifications, and the fact that one can handle NOT gates at the bottom can be handled with an argument that is syntactically similar to previous work. Or, something goes wrong in the construction. Either way we will probably know soon.

Advertisements

Congratulations

I was really delighted with all the prizes that were announced at STOC this year.

pasinOur own Pasin Manurangsi received the Danny Lewin STOC Student Paper Award for his work on the hardness of the dense k-subgraph problem. This is the problem in which we are given a graph and a number k, and we want to find the set of k vertices that induces the most edges. Pasin, who is co-advised by Prasad Raghavendra and me, discovered a new, simple but ingenious reduction that establishes hardness up to almost polynomial factors.

I received the same award exactly twenty years ago, also for a hardness-of-approximation result established via a simple reduction. (Prasad also received it, nine years ago, for a hardness-of-approximation result established via a difficult reduction.) I then spent time at MIT, where Oded Goldreich was, and, partly thanks to his influence, I did my best work there. Pasin is spending this summer at Weizmann, where Oded Goldreich is, so, no pressure, but let’s see what happens. . .

alistairsinclair01-resize

Alistair Sinclair received the ACM SIGACT Distinguished Service prize, for his work setting up and leading the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing.

Those who have been to the institute, that is, almost the whole theoretical computer science community, have seen that it is a place uniquely conducive to do good work. If you stop at think about what it is that makes it so, Alistair’s hand is behind it. The open layout of the second floor, with the whiteboards dividing the space and absorbing sound? Alistair worked closely with the architect, for a year, during the renovation, to make sure that the design would best fit the needs of our community. The friendly, competent and responsive staff? Alistair sat in all the interviews when the staff was recruited, and participates in their performance review. So many things happening and never a conflict? You know whom to thank.

More substantially, almost all the programs that we have had were, to some extent, solicited, and Alistair led the conversations and negotiations with all prospective organizers, shepherding promising concepts to approved programs.

Alistair has also been relentless in making people do things, and making them do things by prescribed deadlines, something that is notoriously difficult in our community. The Simons Institute programs have succeeded, in part, because of the tremendous amount of volunteer work that the organizers donated to our community, and while they would all have been extremely generous with their time in any case, Alistair made sure that they were extra generous. A personal anecdote: I was one of the organizers of one of the Fall 2013 inaugural programs. At that point, I was at Stanford and we were beginning to discuss the idea that I could come back to Berkeley. At some point, around October, I get a phone call from Alistair, and I assume he wants to talk about it. Instead, he goes “you know, I haven’t been seeing you much at the Institute so far. We expect organizers to be around a lot more.” A few months later, I got the offer to move to Berkeley, with a 50% affiliation at the Institute. Even knowing who my boss would be, I enthusiastically accepted.

oded Oded Goldreich received the Knuth Prize. I have already said how I feel about Oded, so there is no need to repeat myself, but I will add that I am also really happy for the Knuth Prize itself, that has managed to consistently make really good choices for the past 21 years, which is an outstanding record.

godelFinally, and I can’t believe that it took so long, the paper of Dwork, McSherry, Nissim and Smith, that introduced differential privacy, has been recognized with the Godel prize. I am very happy for them, especially for my matron of honor and former neighbor Cynthia.

Congratulations to all, and by all I don’t mean just the aforementioned awardees, but also our whole community, that nurtures so many great people, inspires so many good ideas, and makes being part of it such a joy (even when Alistair makes me do things).

Chariots of Fire: Silvio Micali on Oded Goldreich and Scientific Collaborations

At the aforementioned Oded Fest that took place at Weizmann a couple of weeks ago, Silvio Micali read from an epic prepared speech, which tied together the early work on foundations of cryptography, ancient Greece, the Renaissance, Viennese cafés, and the movies “Chariots of Fire” and “The Seven Samurai.”

Silvio has given his kind permission to share the speech, and he has put it in a pdf form that includes the pictures that he used as slides.

Here it is

Fests

I have been in Israel for the last couple of days attending an event in honor of Oded Goldreich‘s 60th birthday.

Oded has touched countless lives, with his boundless dedication to mentoring, executed with a unique mix of tough love and good humor. He embodies a purity of vision in the pursuit of the “right” definitions, the “right” conceptual point of view and the “right” proofs in the areas of theoretical computer science that he has transformed with his work and his influence.

A turning point in my own work in theoretical computer science came when I found this paper online in the Spring of 1995. I was a second-year graduate student in Rome, and I was interested in working on PCP-based hardness of approximation, but this seemed like an impossible goal for me. Following the publication of ALMSS, there had been an avalanche of work between 1992 and 1995, mostly in the form of extended abstracts that were impossible to understand without an awareness of a context that was, at that point, purely an oral tradition. The aforementioned paper, instead, was a 100+ page monster, that explained everything. Studying that paper gave me an entrance into the area.

Three years later, while i was a postdoc at MIT and Oded was there on sabbatical, he played a key role in the series of events that led me to prove that one can get extractors from pseudorandom generators, and it was him who explained to me that this was, in fact, what I had proved. (Initially, I thought my argument was just proving a much less consequential result.) For the most part, it was this result that got me a good job and that is paying my mortgage.

Like me, there are countless people who started to work in a certain area of theoretical computer science because of a course that Oded taught or a set of lecture notes that he wrote, and countless people whose work was made possible by Oded nudging, or usually shoving, them along the right path.

The last two days have felt a bit like going to a wedding, and not just because I saw friends that I do not get to see too often and because there was a lot to eat and to drink. A wedding is a celebration of the couple getting married, but it is also a public event in which friends and family, by affirming their bonds to the newlyweds, also affirm their bonds to each other.

I was deeply moved by the speeches given by Silvio and Shafi, and really everybody did a great job at telling Oded stories and bringing to life various aspects of his work and personality. But perhaps the most fittingly weird tribute was Benny Chor presenting the Chor-Goldreich paper (the one that introduced min-entropy as a measure of randomness for weak random sources, and the problem of 2-source extraction) using the original 1985 slides.

IMG_6726

Speaking of public celebrations, there is less than a month left to register for STOC 2017, the “Theory Fest” that will take place in Montreal in June.

Matrix Multiplication Not Yet Doable In Quadratic Time

Last night, a paper appeared on the arXiv titled A \Theta(n^2) time matrix multiplication algorithm.

At first look the paper seemed to score zero on Scott Aaronson’s list of Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong, and it came from a researcher who has worked extensively on the related problem of all-pairs shortest path, so it looked exciting. Unfortunately, it actually scores one on Scott’s list: it contradicts known impossibility results. (Thanks to Yuval Filmus for the references.)

The first step in the algorithm is to show how to compute the inner product of two 3^n-dimensional vectors using n^{O(1)} \cdot 2^n multiplication. This contradicts a lower bound due to Pan (see here the proof of a more general result) that computing the inner product of two N-dimensional vectors require at least N multiplications.

In addition, Raz has proved an \Omega (n^2 \log n) lower bound for matrix multiplication arithmetic circuits, and, to the best of my understanding, the paper’s claims imply an O(n^2) size arithmetic circuit. (Raz’s lower bound assumes that the circuit is not given access to large constants; as far as I can see, the formulas in Han’s paper do not require large constants.)

What’s New at the Simons Institute

This Thursday (December 15) is the deadline to apply for post-doctoral positions at the Simons Institute for the next academic year. In Fall 2017 we will run a single program, instead of two programs in parallel, on optimization. The program will be double the size of our typical programs, and will focus on the interplay between discrete and continuous methods in optimization. In Spring 2018 there will be a program on real-time decision-making and one on theoretical neuroscience.

In a few weeks, our Spring 2017 programs will start. The program on pseudorandomness will have a mix of complexity theorists and number theorists, and it will happen at the same time as a program on analytic number theory at MSRI. It will start with a series of lectures. It will start with a series of lectures in the third week of January. The program on foundations of machine learning has been much anticipated, and it will also start with a series of lectures, in the fourth week of January, which will bring to Berkeley at impressive collection of machine learning practitioners whose research is both applied and rigorous. All lectures will be streamed live, and I encourage you to set up viewing parties.

During the current semester, the Simons Institute had for the first time a journalist in residence. The inaugural resident journalist has been Erica Klarreich, that many of you probably know for her outstanding writing on mathematics and computer science for quanta magazine.

Next semester, our resident journalist will be Pulitzer-prize winner John Markoff, who just retired from the New York Times.

Avi60: Zero Knowledge for all NP

1982 was the annus mirabilis of the foundations of cryptography. In their paper “probabilistic encryption,” Goldwasser and Micali introduced two rigorous definitions of security for encryption, which they proved to be equivalent. One definition required the distributions of encryptions of any two messages to be computationally indistinguishable (a concept they introduce in the paper), the other, which they call semantic security, is the property that whatever can be efficiently computed about a message given the cyphertext can also be efficiently computed without the cyphertext. Later the same year, Blum and Micali gave a rigorous definitions of security for pseudorandom generators, and Yao wrapped all these results in a more general framework requiring generic, rather than number-theoretic, assumptions.

The concept of semantic security inspired most subsequent definitions, and proofs, of security based on the concept of simulation. Instead of trying to specify a list of things than adversary should not be able to do, one defines an idealized model in which the adversary has no access to private and encrypted data, and one defines a given system to be secure if whatever an attacker can efficiently compute given the ability of eavesdrop (and possibly mount an active attack), can also be efficiently computed in the ideal model. One then proves a system to be secure by developing a simulator in the ideal model for every real-world adversary.

Together with Rackoff, Goldwasser and Micali took this idea one step further from encryption to interactive communication, and came up with the idea of Zero-Knowledge Proofs. A zero-knowledge proof is a probabilistic proof system in which a prover can convince a verifier, with high confidence, of the truth of a statement, with the additional property that there is a simulator that is able to sample from the distribution of verifier’s views of the interaction. Thus the verifier is convinced of the truth of the statement being proved, but gains no additional information. In their paper, Goldwasser, Micali and Rackoff introduce the concept and present a zero-knowledge proof for a conjecturally intractable number-theoretic problem. The paper was famously rejected several times, eventually appearing in 1985.

The following year, Goldreich, Micali and Avi Wigderson published a paper giving zero knowledge proof systems for all problems in NP. Their work made zero-knowdge proofs a key tool in the design of secure cryptosystem: it was now possible for a party to publish a commitment to a secret x and then, at any time, be able to prove that x has a certain property without releasing any additional information about x. This ability was a key ingredient in the development of secure multi-party computation in 1987, by the same authors.

So how does one prove in zero knowledge that, say, a graph is 3-colorable? (Once you have zero-knowledge proofs for one NP-complete problems, you immediately have them for all problems in NP.)

Suppose the prover and the verifier know a graph G and the prover knows a 3-coloring. A physical analog of the protocol (which can be implemented using the notion of commitment schemes) is the following: the prover randomizes the color labels, then takes |V| lockboxes, each labeled by a vertex, and puts a piece of paper with the color of vertex v in the lockbox labeled by v, for every v. The prover locks all the lockboxes, and sends them to the verifier. The verifier picks a random edge (u,v) and asks for the keys of the lockboxes for u and for v. If they contain different colors, the verifier accepts, otherwise it rejects.

The protocol is complete, in the sense that if the graph is 3-colorable and the parties follow the protocol, then the verifier accepts with probability 1.

The protocol is sound, in the sense that if the graph is not 3-colorable, then, no matter what the prover does, there will have to some edge (u,v) such that the lockboxes of u and v are the same, and the verifier has probability at least 1/|E| of picking such an edge and rejecting. Thus the verifier accepts with probability at most 1 - 1/|E|, which can be made negligibly small by repeating the protocol several times.

As per the zero-knowledge property, the view of the verifier is the choice of a random edge, two open lockboxes corresponding to the endpoints of the edge, containing two random different colors, and |V|-2 unopened lockboxes. A view with such a distribution can be easily sampled, and the same is true when the physical implementation is replaced by a commitment scheme. (Technically, this is argument only establishes honest-verifier zero knowledge, and a bit more work is needed to capture a more general property.)

Avi60

The festivities in honor of Avi Wigderson’s 60th birthday start tomorrow in Princeton, with a dream team of speakers. I will not be able to attend, but luckily a livestream will be available.

During the week, I will post a random selection of results of Avi’s.

Did you know that Avi’s first paper was an algorithm to color 3-colorable graphs using O(\sqrt n) colors? Here is the algorithm, which has the flavor of Ramsey theory proofs.

Suppose all nodes have degree < \sqrt n, then we can easily color the graph with \sqrt n colors. Otherwise, there is a node v of degree \geq \sqrt n. The neighbors of v induce a bipartite graph (because, in the 3-coloring that we are promised to exist, they are colored with whichever are the two colors that are different from the color of v), and so we can find in linear time an independent set of size \geq \sqrt n / 2. So we keep finding independent sets (which we assign a color to, and remove) of size \geq \sqrt n /2 until we get to a point where we know how to color the residual graph with \leq \sqrt n colors, meaning that we can color the whole graph with \leq 3 \sqrt n colors.

Congratulations to the 2016 Knuth Prize Selection Committee!

For the excellent choice of recognizing Noam Nisan for his work on complexity lower bounds, derandomization, and mechanism design.

Noam is known to readers of in theory for the development of the Nisan-Wigderson pseudorandom generator construction, which remains at the foundation of conditional derandomization results, and for Nisan’s generator, which is secure against log-space statistical test, and whose O(\log^2 n) seed length has not been improved upon in the past 25+ years. The modern definition of randomness extractors was made in a paper of Noam and David Zuckerman, which was also motivated by space-bounded derandomization.

Besides introducing almost all the techniques used in the main results on derandomization and pseudorandomness, Noam also introduced many of the techniques that underlie the main lower bound results that we can prove in restricted models, including the idea of approximating functions by polynomials, of looking at partial derivates to obtain artihmetic lower bounds and the connection between rank and communication complexity. With Linial and Mansour, he showed that the Hastad switching lemma could be used to bound the Fourier coefficients of functions computable by bounded-depth circuits, leading to quasi-polynomial learning algorithms for them (and to the realization that bounded-depth circuits cannot realize pseudorandom functions).

On November 27, 1989, Noam sent an email to a group of colleagues with a proof that (a decision problem equivalent to) the permanent had a multi-prover interactive proof; this set in motion a flurry of activity which led in a matter of days to the LFKN paper showing that P^{\# P} had a (one-prover) interactive proof and to Shamir’s proof that IP = PSPACE.

At the end of the 1990s, having done enough to keep the computational complexity community occupied for several subsequent decades, Noam wrote a paper with Amir Ronen called Algorithmic mechanism design. Around the same time, Elias Koutsoupias and Christos Papadimitriou published their work on worst-case equilibria and Tim Roughgarden and Eva Tardos published their work on selfish routing. A couple of years later, Christos gave back-to-back invited talks at SODA 2001, STOC 2001, ICALP 2001 and FOCS 2001 on game theory, and algorithmic game theory and algorithmic mechanism design have gone on to become a major part of theoretical computer science in the subsequent time.

Congratulations again to the prize committee, and please use the comments section to talk about the result of Noam’s that I didn’t know well enough to write about.

A conversation on what theory has done for us

[Inspired by Lance Fortnow’s retrospective post on the “Karp report,” Avi Wigderson’s response, and the Monty Python]

And what has the theory of computing done for us in the last twenty years?

Differential privacy? Apple just announced it will be used in iOS 10

Yes, and the application to preventing false discovery and overfitting is now used in production.

Ok, fine, but apart from differential privacy, what has theory done for us in the last twenty years?

Quantum algorithms? There wouldn’t be such a push to realize quantum computers if it wasn’t for Shor’s algorithm.

And quantum error correcting! There would be no hope of realizing quantum computers without quantum error correction

Very well, but apart from differential privacy and quantum computing, what has theory done for us in the …

Streaming algorithms? It all started with a theory paper and now it is a major interdisciplinary effort.

Yes, fair enough, but apart from differential privacy, quantum computing, and streaming algorithms, what has theory done for us…

Linear time decodable LDPC error-correcting codes? The first generation was not practical, but now they are part of major standards

Sure, ok, but apart from differential privacy, quantum computing, streaming algorithms, and error-correcting codes, what has theory…

Homomorphic encryption? The first-generation solutions were inefficient, but it might be only a matter of time before we have usable homomorphic encryption standards.

Linear-time SDD solvers? Algorithms like this and this are implementable and we may be one more idea away from algorithms that can be put in production.

Sublinear time algorithms like sparse FFT?

All right! But apart from differential privacy, quantum computing, streaming algorithms, error-correcting codes, homomorphic encryption, linear-time equation solvers and sub-linear time algorithms, what has the theory of computing ever done for us in the past twenty years?

. . .

[Could be continued. Indeed, please continue in the comments]