On an optimal randomized acceptor for graph nonisomorphism

An acceptor for a language L is an algorithm that accepts every input in L and does not stop on every input not in L. An acceptor Opt for a language L is called optimal if for every acceptor A for this language there exists polynomial p"A such that for every x@?L, the running time time"O"p"t(x) of Opt on x is bounded by p"A(time"A(x)+|x|) for every x@?L. (Note that the comparison of the running time is done pointwise, i.e., for every word of the language.) The existence of optimal acceptors is an important open question equivalent to the existence of p-optimal proof systems for many important languages (Krajicek and Pudlak, 1989; Sadowski, 1999; Messner, 1999 [9,13,11]). Yet no nontrivial examples of languages in NP@?co-NP having optimal acceptors are known. In this short note we construct a randomized acceptor for graph nonisomorphism that is optimal up to permutations of the vertices of the input graphs, i.e., its running time on a pair of graphs (G"1,G"2) is at most polynomially larger than the maximum (in fact, even the median) of the running time of any other acceptor taken over all permuted pairs (@p"1(G"1),@p"2(G"2)). One possible motivation is the (pointwise) optimality in the class of acceptors based on graph invariants where the time needed to compute an invariant does not depend much on the representation of the input pair of nonisomorphic graphs. In fact, our acceptor remains optimal even if the running time is compared to the average-case running time over all permuted pairs. We introduce a natural notion of average-case optimality (not depending on the language of graph nonisomorphism) and show that our acceptor remains average-case optimal for any probability distribution on the inputs that respects permutations of vertices.

[1]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Consequences of the provability of NP ⊆ P/poly , 2007, J. Symb. Log..

[2]  Yijia Chen,et al.  Hard Instances of Algorithms and Proof Systems , 2012, CiE.

[3]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first order theories and the complexity of computations , 1989, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[4]  Edward A. Hirsch,et al.  On Optimal Heuristic Randomized Semidecision Procedures, with Applications to Proof Complexity and Cryptography , 2012, Theory of Computing Systems.

[5]  Jochen Messner,et al.  On the simulation order of proof systems , 2000 .

[6]  Edward A. Hirsch Optimal Acceptors and Optimal Proof Systems , 2010, TAMC.

[7]  Claus-Peter Schnorr,et al.  Optimal Algorithms for Self-Reducible Problems , 1976, ICALP.

[8]  László Babai,et al.  Canonical labelling of graphs in linear average time , 1979, 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).

[9]  Boris A. Trakhtenbrot,et al.  A Survey of Russian Approaches to Perebor (Brute-Force Searches) Algorithms , 1984, Annals of the History of Computing.

[10]  Luca Trevisan Average-case Complexity , 2008, 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[11]  Zenon Sadowski On an Optimal Deterministic Algorithm for SAT , 1998, CSL.

[12]  Jochen Messner On Optimal Algorithms and Optimal Proof Systems , 1999, STACS.

[13]  Edward A. Hirsch,et al.  Optimal heuristic algorithms for the image of an injective function , 2011, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[14]  Russell Impagli A Personal View of Average-Case Complexity , 1995 .