On the possibilities and limitations of pseudodeterministic algorithms

We study the possibilities and limitations of pseudodeterministic algorithms, algorithms, a notion put forward by Gat and Goldwasser (2011). These are probabilistic algorithms that solve search problems such that on each input, with high probability, they output the same solution, which may be thought of as a canonical solution. We consider both the standard setting of (probabilistic) polynomial-time algorithms and the setting of (probabilistic) sublinear-time algorithms. Some of our results are outlined next. In the standard setting, we show that pseudodeterministic algorithms are more powerful than deterministic algorithms if and only if \cP\neq\BPP, but are weaker than general probabilistic algorithms. In the sublinear-time setting, we show that if a search problem has a pseudodeterministic algorithm of query complexity q, then this problem can be solved deterministically making O(q4) queries. This refers to total search problems. In contrast, for several natural promise search problems, we present pseudodeterministic algorithms that are much more efficient than their deterministic counterparts.

[1]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Randomness vs. time: de-randomization under a uniform assumption , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[2]  Dana Ron,et al.  A Sublinear Bipartiteness Tester for Bounded Degree Graphs , 1999, Comb..

[3]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  Probabilistic Boolean decision trees and the complexity of evaluating game trees , 1986, 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986).

[4]  Richard E. Overill,et al.  Foundations of Cryptography: Basic Tools , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Shafi Goldwasser,et al.  Probabilistic Search Algorithms with Unique Answers and Their Cryptographic Applications , 2011, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[6]  Dana Ron,et al.  Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation , 1996, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science.

[7]  László Babai,et al.  Canonical labeling of graphs , 1983, STOC.

[8]  H. Buhrman,et al.  Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Bart de Smit,et al.  Standard models for finite fields , 2013, Handbook of Finite Fields.

[10]  Marc Snir,et al.  Lower Bounds on Probabilistic Linear Decision Trees , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Sampling algorithms: lower bounds and applications , 2001, STOC '01.

[12]  Oded Goldreich,et al.  Hierarchy Theorems for Property Testing , 2010, Property Testing.

[13]  Oded Goldreich,et al.  In a World of P=BPP , 2010, Studies in Complexity and Cryptography.

[14]  Noam Nisan CREW PRAMs and Decision Trees , 1991, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  Dana Ron,et al.  Property Testing in Bounded Degree Graphs , 1997, STOC.

[16]  Luca Trevisan,et al.  Three Theorems regarding Testing Graph Properties , 2001, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..