Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Simultaneous Multiparty Communication Protocols for Composed Functions
Yassine Hamoudi IRIF, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS
MFCS 2018
Number-On-Forehead model [Chandra, Furst, Lipton’83] 2
F(x1, x2, x3, x4) = ?
x2, x3, x4 x1, x3, x4
x1, x2, x3x1, x2, x4
Player 1 Player 2
Player 4Player 3
F : X1 × ⋯ × Xk → {0,1}
Number-On-Forehead model [Chandra, Furst, Lipton’83] 2
• Player i doesn’t know (⇔ Number-On-Forehead)
• Communicate by broadcasting bits
• Players have unlimited computational power
xi
F(x1, x2, x3, x4) = ?
x2, x3, x4 x1, x3, x4
x1, x2, x3x1, x2, x4
Player 1 Player 2
Player 4Player 3
F : X1 × ⋯ × Xk → {0,1}
No randomness in this talk
Examples 3
• Player 1 sends x2
• Player 2 sends F(x1,…, xk)
An always-O(n) protocol: F is easy / protocol is efficient ⇔ communication cost logO(1)(n)
x1, …, xn ∈ {0, 1}n
Examples 3
Equality: x1 = … = xk?
Two players: Ω(n)
k ≥ 3 players: O(1)
• Player 1 indicates if x2 = … = xk
• Player 2 indicates if x1 = x3
• Player 1 sends x2
• Player 2 sends F(x1,…, xk)
An always-O(n) protocol: F is easy / protocol is efficient ⇔ communication cost logO(1)(n)
x1, …, xn ∈ {0, 1}n
Applications of the NOF model 4
• Branching programs, Ramsey theory [Chandra, Furst, Lipton'83]
• Quasi-random graphs [Chung, Tetali'93]
• Proof complexity [Beame, Pitassi, Segerlind’07]
• Circuit complexity [Håstad, Goldmann’91] [Razborov, Wigderson'93] [Beigel, Tarui’94]
• Data-structures for dynamic problems [Patrascu’10]
Applications of the NOF model 4
• Branching programs, Ramsey theory [Chandra, Furst, Lipton'83]
• Quasi-random graphs [Chung, Tetali'93]
• Proof complexity [Beame, Pitassi, Segerlind’07]
• Circuit complexity [Håstad, Goldmann’91] [Razborov, Wigderson'93] [Beigel, Tarui’94]
• Data-structures for dynamic problems [Patrascu’10]
polysize constant-depth circuits with AND, OR, NOT, MODm gates
F is hard to compute for k ≥ log(n) players ⇒ F is not in ACC0
[Håstad, Goldmann’91][Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04]
Conjecture: MAJORITY ∉ ACC0
Conjecture: NP ⊈ ACC0
(log n)ω(1)communication cost:
Best lower bounds so far: Ω̃ ( n2k )
Applications of the NOF model 4
• Branching programs, Ramsey theory [Chandra, Furst, Lipton'83]
• Quasi-random graphs [Chung, Tetali'93]
• Proof complexity [Beame, Pitassi, Segerlind’07]
• Circuit complexity [Håstad, Goldmann’91] [Razborov, Wigderson'93] [Beigel, Tarui’94]
• Data-structures for dynamic problems [Patrascu’10]
polysize constant-depth circuits with AND, OR, NOT, MODm gates
F is hard to compute for k ≥ log(n) players ⇒ F is not in ACC0
[Håstad, Goldmann’91][Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04]
Conjecture: MAJORITY ∉ ACC0
Conjecture: NP ⊈ ACC0
Log(n) barrier problem
Find a function that is hard to compute for log(n) or more players in the Number-On-Forehead model.
(log n)ω(1)communication cost:
Best lower bounds so far: Ω̃ ( n2k )
Applications of the NOF model 4
• Branching programs, Ramsey theory [Chandra, Furst, Lipton'83]
• Quasi-random graphs [Chung, Tetali'93]
• Proof complexity [Beame, Pitassi, Segerlind’07]
• Circuit complexity [Håstad, Goldmann’91] [Razborov, Wigderson'93] [Beigel, Tarui’94]
• Data-structures for dynamic problems [Patrascu’10]
polysize constant-depth circuits with AND, OR, NOT, MODm gates
F is hard to compute for k ≥ log(n) players ⇒ F is not in ACC0
[Håstad, Goldmann’91][Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04]
Conjecture: MAJORITY ∉ ACC0
Conjecture: NP ⊈ ACC0
Log(n) barrier problem
Find a function that is hard to compute for log(n) or more players in the Number-On-Forehead model.
(log n)ω(1)
simultaneous
communication cost:
even in the simultaneous
NOF model
Best lower bounds so far: Ω̃ ( n2k )
Simultaneous Number-On-Forehead model 5
F(x1, x2, x3, x4) = ?
x2, x3, x4 x1, x3, x4 x1, x2, x3x1, x2, x4
Player 1 Player 2 Player 4Player 3
One-way communication to a referee, no interactions
Referee
g1 g2 g3 gn
Candidates to break the log(n) barrier: the composed functions 6
x1 0 1 0 1
x2 1 1 0 0
⋮ …
xk 1 0 0 1
n bits
k players
• Input: x1, …, xk ∈ {0,1}n • Player i doesn’t see row i
Composed function: f ∘ (g1, …, gn) where f : {0, 1}n → {0, 1}
and gj : {0, 1}k → {0, 1}
f
g1 g2 g3 gn
Candidates to break the log(n) barrier: the composed functions 6
x1 0 1 0 1
x2 1 1 0 0
⋮ …
xk 1 0 0 1
n bits
k players
• Input: x1, …, xk ∈ {0,1}n • Player i doesn’t see row i
Composed function: f ∘ (g1, …, gn) where f : {0, 1}n → {0, 1}
and gj : {0, 1}k → {0, 1}
f
Examples: • Generalized Inner Product: MOD2 ○ (AND,…,AND)• Disjointness: OR ○ (AND,…,AND)• Majority of Majority: MAJ ○ (MAJ,…,MAJ)
g1 g2 g3 gn
Candidates to break the log(n) barrier: the composed functions 6
x1 0 1 0 1
x2 1 1 0 0
⋮ …
xk 1 0 0 1
n bits
k players
• Input: x1, …, xk ∈ {0,1}n • Player i doesn’t see row i
Composed function: f ∘ (g1, …, gn) where f : {0, 1}n → {0, 1}
and gj : {0, 1}k → {0, 1}
f
[Grolmusz’94][Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04][Ada, Chattopadhyay, Fawzi, Nguyen’15]
Examples: • Generalized Inner Product: MOD2 ○ (AND,…,AND)• Disjointness: OR ○ (AND,…,AND)• Majority of Majority: MAJ ○ (MAJ,…,MAJ)
There is an efficient simultaneous protocol for f ○ (g1,…,gn) when f is symmetric and k ≥ Ω(log n).
Block-composed functions 7
x1 1 0 1
x2 1 1 0
⋮ … …
xk 1 1 0
tn bitst bits
g1 gn f
k players
Block-composed functions 7
x1 1 0 1
x2 1 1 0
⋮ … …
xk 1 1 0
tn bitst bits
g1 gn f
The simultaneous communication cost of MAJ ◦ (MAJ,…,MAJ)is (log n)ω(1) for t ≥ √n and k ≥ Ω(log n).Unknown even
for t = 2
Conjecture [Babai et. al.’04]
k players
Our result 8
0 1 11 0 1
… …
1 1 0
t bits
g1 f
If t is constant, there is an efficient simultaneous protocol for f ○ (g1,…,gn) when f, g1, …, gn are symmetric and k ≥ Ω(log n).
MAJ ◦ (MAJ,…,MAJ) cannot break the log n barrier for constant t
Theorem:
gn
Our result 8
0 1 11 0 1
… …
1 1 0
t bits
g1 f
If t is constant, there is an efficient simultaneous protocol for f ○ (g1,…,gn) when f, g1, …, gn are symmetric and k ≥ Ω(log n).
MAJ ◦ (MAJ,…,MAJ) cannot break the log n barrier for constant t
Theorem:
gn
Block-width t Model Conditions[Ada, Chattopadhyay, Fawzi, Nguyen’15] 1 simultaneous f symmetric
[Chattopadhyay, Saks’14] log log n non-simultaneous f symmetric [Chattopadhyay, Saks’14] log n non-simultaneous f, g1, …, gn symmetric
Our result constant simultaneous f, g1, …, gn symmetric
Our result 9
0 1 11 0 1
… …
1 1 0
t bits
g1 f
If t is constant, there is an efficient simultaneous protocol for f ○ (g1,…,gn) when f, g1, …, gn are symmetric and k ≥ Ω(log n).
Roadmap (when k = Θ(log n)):
1. Reduce to the case of equal inner functions g = g1 = … = gn
2. Simultaneous protocol for f◦(g,…,g) with a generalization of [Babai et. al.’04]
MAJ ◦ (MAJ,…,MAJ) cannot break the log n barrier for constant t
Theorem:
gn
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
1. Each is decomposed in a basis of symmetric functions:
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
gj gj(x) = ∑aca(gj) ⋅ ma(x)
1. Each is decomposed in a basis of symmetric functions:
2. For each basis element ma, define the matrix Ma where each Bj is repeated times.
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
gj gj(x) = ∑aca(gj) ⋅ ma(x)
ca(gj)
1. Each is decomposed in a basis of symmetric functions:
2. For each basis element ma, define the matrix Ma where each Bj is repeated times.
3. For each ma, compute SUM○(ma,…,ma) on Ma.
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
gj gj(x) = ∑aca(gj) ⋅ ma(x)
ca(gj)
1. Each is decomposed in a basis of symmetric functions:
2. For each basis element ma, define the matrix Ma where each Bj is repeated times.
3. For each ma, compute SUM○(ma,…,ma) on Ma.
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
gj gj(x) = ∑aca(gj) ⋅ ma(x)
ca(gj)
∑aSUM ∘ (ma, …, ma)(Ma) = ∑a ∑j
ca(gj) ⋅ ma(Bj) = ∑jgj(Bj)
1. Each is decomposed in a basis of symmetric functions:
2. For each basis element ma, define the matrix Ma where each Bj is repeated times.
3. For each ma, compute SUM○(ma,…,ma) on Ma.
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
gj gj(x) = ∑aca(gj) ⋅ ma(x)
ca(gj)
∑aSUM ∘ (ma, …, ma)(Ma) = ∑a ∑j
ca(gj) ⋅ ma(Bj) = ∑jgj(Bj)
Enough to compute since f is symmetric. f ∘ (g1, …, gn)
1. Each is decomposed in a basis of symmetric functions:
2. For each basis element ma, define the matrix Ma where each Bj is repeated times.
3. For each ma, compute SUM○(ma,…,ma) on Ma.
Step 1: equal inner functions 10
x1 1 0 0
x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …
xk 0 1 1
fg1 gn
B1 Bn
gj gj(x) = ∑aca(gj) ⋅ ma(x)
ca(gj)
∑aSUM ∘ (ma, …, ma)(Ma) = ∑a ∑j
ca(gj) ⋅ ma(Bj) = ∑jgj(Bj)
Enough to compute since f is symmetric. f ∘ (g1, …, gn)
mod p
Size ≤ k×n2
for prime p ∈ (n,2n)
• For a k×n matrix M, define y(M) = (y0,…,yk) where yi = #columns with exactly i 1's.
→ Knowing y(M) is enough to compute f○(g,…,g) when f and g are symmetric.
11Step 3: equation solving protocol
[Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04] Protocol for t = 1:
x1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
x2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
x3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
x4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
x5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
y0 = 0y1 = 1y2 = 1y3 = 3y4 = 1y5 = 1
• For a k×n matrix M, define y(M) = (y0,…,yk) where yi = #columns with exactly i 1's.
→ Knowing y(M) is enough to compute f○(g,…,g) when f and g are symmetric.
11Step 3: equation solving protocol
[Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04] Protocol for t = 1:
x1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
x2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
x3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
x4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
x5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
• For each 1 ≤ i ≤ k, Player i sends y(Mi) where Mi is the submatrix seen by Player i.
→ This will be the only communication part of our protocol.
y0 = 0y1 = 1y2 = 1y3 = 3y4 = 1y5 = 1
M1
→ The referee computes y(M) and then f○(g,…,g).
• For a k×n matrix M, define y(M) = (y0,…,yk) where yi = #columns with exactly i 1's.
→ Knowing y(M) is enough to compute f○(g,…,g) when f and g are symmetric.
11Step 3: equation solving protocol
[Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04] Protocol for t = 1:
x1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
x2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
x3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
x4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
x5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
• For each 1 ≤ i ≤ k, Player i sends y(Mi) where Mi is the submatrix seen by Player i.
→ This will be the only communication part of our protocol.
• Using y(M1), …, y(Mk), one can define an equation whose only integral solution is y(M).
y0 = 0y1 = 1y2 = 1y3 = 3y4 = 1y5 = 1
M1
→ The referee computes y(M) and then f○(g,…,g).
• For a k×n matrix M, define y(M) = (y0,…,yk) where yi = #columns with exactly i 1's.
→ Knowing y(M) is enough to compute f○(g,…,g) when f and g are symmetric.
11Step 3: equation solving protocol
[Babai, Gál, Kimmel, Lokam’04] Protocol for t = 1:
x1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
x2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
x3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
x4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
x5 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
• For each 1 ≤ i ≤ k, Player i sends y(Mi) where Mi is the submatrix seen by Player i.
→ This will be the only communication part of our protocol.
• Using y(M1), …, y(Mk), one can define an equation whose only integral solution is y(M).
y0 = 0y1 = 1y2 = 1y3 = 3y4 = 1y5 = 1
M1
We generalize this protocol to t > 1, and show that the corresponding equation admits exactly one integral solution when .k ≥ Ω(log n)
Conclusion 12
• Efficient simultaneous protocol for non-constant t and/or non-symmetric g1,…,gn
• Strong lower bound for k ≥ log n players
→ only general method known: discrepancy method and its variants → [Podolskii, Sherstov’17]: first ω(1) lower bound when k ≥ log n for explicit function
Our result: MAJ ◦ (MAJ,…,MAJ) cannot break the log n barrier for any constant t(in fact, any symmetric f○(g1,…,gn))
Future directions:
arXiv: 1710.01969
Step 0: decreasing the number of players to k = Θ(log n) 13
If g : Y1,…,Yk → Y is symmetric then
is symmetric.
g′ (y1, …, yk′ ) = g(y1, …, yk′ , yk′ +1, …, yk)
Lemma:
any fixed valuesvariables
Step 0: decreasing the number of players to k = Θ(log n) 13
If g : Y1,…,Yk → Y is symmetric then
is symmetric.
g′ (y1, …, yk′ ) = g(y1, …, yk′ , yk′ +1, …, yk)
Lemma:
x1 1 0 0x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …xk’ 0 1 1⋮
xk 1 0 0
f
any fixed valuesvariables
g1 gn
Step 0: decreasing the number of players to k = Θ(log n) 13
If g : Y1,…,Yk → Y is symmetric then
is symmetric.
g′ (y1, …, yk′ ) = g(y1, …, yk′ , yk′ +1, …, yk)
Lemma:
x1 1 0 0x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …xk’ 0 1 1⋮
xk 1 0 0
f
any fixed valuesvariables
g1 gn
x1 1 0 0x2 1 1 1
⋮ … …xk’ 0 1 1⋮
xk 1 0 0
fg′ 1 g′ n