Pseudo-derandomizing learning and approximation

We continue the study of pseudo-deterministic algorithms initiated by Gat and Goldwasser [Eran Gat and Shafi Goldwasser, 2011]. A pseudo-deterministic algorithm is a probabilistic algorithm which produces a fixed output with high probability. We explore pseudo-determinism in the settings of learning and approximation. Our goal is to simulate known randomized algorithms in these settings by pseudo-deterministic algorithms in a generic fashion - a goal we succinctly term pseudo-derandomization. Learning. In the setting of learning with membership queries, we first show that randomized learning algorithms can be derandomized (resp. pseudo-derandomized) under the standard hardness assumption that E (resp. BPE) requires large Boolean circuits. Thus, despite the fact that learning is an algorithmic task that requires interaction with an oracle, standard hardness assumptions suffice to (pseudo-)derandomize it. We also unconditionally pseudo-derandomize any {quasi-polynomial} time learning algorithm for polynomial size circuits on infinitely many input lengths in sub-exponential time. Next, we establish a generic connection between learning and derandomization in the reverse direction, by showing that deterministic (resp. pseudo-deterministic) learning algorithms for a concept class C imply hitting sets against C that are computable deterministically (resp. pseudo-deterministically). In particular, this suggests a new approach to constructing hitting set generators against AC^0[p] circuits by giving a deterministic learning algorithm for AC^0[p]. Approximation. Turning to approximation, we unconditionally pseudo-derandomize any poly-time randomized approximation scheme for integer-valued functions infinitely often in subexponential time over any samplable distribution on inputs. As a corollary, we get that the (0,1)-Permanent has a fully pseudo-deterministic approximation scheme running in sub-exponential time infinitely often over any samplable distribution on inputs. Finally, we {investigate} the notion of approximate canonization of Boolean circuits. We use a connection between pseudodeterministic learning and approximate canonization to show that if BPE does not have sub-exponential size circuits infinitely often, then there is a pseudo-deterministic approximate canonizer for AC^0[p] computable in quasi-polynomial time.

[1]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  In search of an easy witness: exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time , 2002, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[2]  Noam Nisan,et al.  On Yao's XOR-Lemma , 1995, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

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

[4]  Ryan Williams,et al.  Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds , 2010, STOC '10.

[5]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Constant depth circuits, Fourier transform, and learnability , 1993, JACM.

[6]  Shafi Goldwasser,et al.  Pseudo-deterministic Proofs , 2017, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[7]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A theory of the learnable , 1984, STOC '84.

[8]  Luca Trevisan,et al.  Pseudorandomness and Average-Case Complexity Via Uniform Reductions , 2002, Proceedings 17th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity.

[9]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  The Complexity of Local List Decoding , 2008, APPROX-RANDOM.

[10]  Jeffrey C. Jackson,et al.  An efficient membership-query algorithm for learning DNF with respect to the uniform distribution , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[11]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Learning Algorithms from Natural Proofs , 2016, CCC.

[12]  Emanuele Viola,et al.  Randomness Buys Depth for Approximate Counting , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[13]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Hardness vs. randomness , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[14]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Amplification of weak learning under the uniform distribution , 1993, COLT '93.

[15]  Moni Naor,et al.  Number-theoretic constructions of efficient pseudo-random functions , 2004, JACM.

[16]  Alon Rosen,et al.  Pseudorandom Functions: Three Decades Later , 2017, Tutorials on the Foundations of Cryptography.

[17]  Zvika Brakerski,et al.  On Statistically Secure Obfuscation with Approximate Correctness , 2016, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[18]  Dhiraj Holden A Note on Unconditional Subexponential-time Pseudo-deterministic Algorithms for BPP Search Problems , 2017, ArXiv.

[19]  Ryan O'Donnell,et al.  Analysis of Boolean Functions , 2014, ArXiv.

[20]  Madhur Tulsiani,et al.  Improved Pseudorandom Generators for Depth 2 Circuits , 2010, APPROX-RANDOM.

[21]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Efficient learning algorithms yield circuit lower bounds , 2009, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[22]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  P = BPP if E requires exponential circuits: derandomizing the XOR lemma , 1997, STOC '97.

[23]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  Verifying and decoding in constant depth , 2007, STOC '07.

[24]  Pravesh Kothari,et al.  Constructing Hard Functions Using Learning Algorithms , 2013, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[25]  Ofer Grossman Finding Primitive Roots Pseudo-Deterministically , 2015, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[26]  Christopher Umans Pseudo-random generators for all hardnesses , 2002, STOC '02.

[27]  Meera Sitharam,et al.  Derandomized Learning of Boolean Functions over Finite Abelian Groups , 2001, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[28]  Eric Vigoda,et al.  A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with nonnegative entries , 2004, JACM.

[29]  NaorMoni,et al.  Number-theoretic constructions of efficient pseudo-random functions , 2004 .

[30]  Meera Sitharam,et al.  Pseudorandom generators and learning algorithms forAC0 , 1995, computational complexity.

[31]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Derandomizing Polynomial Identity Tests Means Proving Circuit Lower Bounds , 2003, STOC '03.

[32]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Efficient Learning Algorithms Yield Circuit Lower Bounds , 2006, COLT.

[33]  Emanuele Viola,et al.  On beating the hybrid argument , 2012, ITCS '12.

[34]  Stasys Jukna,et al.  Boolean Function Complexity Advances and Frontiers , 2012, Bull. EATCS.

[35]  Rocco A. Servedio,et al.  Learning and Lower Bounds for AC0 with Threshold Gates , 2010, APPROX-RANDOM.

[36]  Igor Carboni Oliveira,et al.  Conspiracies between Learning Algorithms, Circuit Lower Bounds and Pseudorandomness , 2016, CCC.

[37]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory , 1994 .

[38]  Rocco A. Servedio,et al.  Deterministic Search for CNF Satisfying Assignments in Almost Polynomial Time , 2017, 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[39]  Ilya Volkovich On Learning, Lower Bounds and (un)Keeping Promises , 2014, ICALP.

[40]  Shafi Goldwasser,et al.  Bipartite Perfect Matching in Pseudo-Deterministic NC , 2017, ICALP.

[41]  Igor Carboni Oliveira,et al.  Pseudodeterministic constructions in subexponential time , 2016, STOC.

[42]  Amit Sahai,et al.  On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs , 2001, JACM.

[43]  John M. Hitchcock,et al.  Exact Learning Algorithms, Betting Games, and Circuit Lower Bounds , 2013, TOCT.

[44]  Rocco A. Servedio,et al.  An Average-Case Depth Hierarchy Theorem for Boolean Circuits , 2017, J. ACM.

[45]  Luca Trevisan,et al.  A Derandomized Switching Lemma and an Improved Derandomization of AC0 , 2013, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.