BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Joshua A. Grochow

Joshua A. Grochow appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computational Complexitymath.RTData Structures and Algorithmsmath.COmath.AGmath.GRmath.LOArtificial IntelligenceComputational Engineering, Finance, and Sciencecond-mat.stat-mechcs.CYInformation TheoryLogic in Computer Sciencemath.ITmath.NTPopulations and EvolutionSymbolic Computation

Catalog footprint

What is connected

13works
17topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

13 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Polynomial-Time Axioms of Choice and Polynomial-Time Cardinality

There is no single canonical polynomial-time version of the Axiom of Choice (AC); several statements of AC that are equivalent in Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory are already inequivalent from a constructive point of view, and are similarly inequivalent from a complexity-theoretic point of view. In this paper we show that many classical formulations of AC, when restricted to polynomial time in natural ways, are equivalent to standard complexity-theoretic hypotheses, including several that were of interest to Selman. This provides a unified view of these hypotheses, and we hope provides additional motivation for studying some of the lesser-known hypotheses that appear here. Additionally, because several classical forms of AC are formulated in terms of cardinals, we develop a theory of polynomial-time cardinality. Nerode & Remmel (Contemp. Math. 106, 1990 and Springer Lec. Notes Math. 1432, 1990) developed a related theory, but restricted to unary sets. Downey (Math. Reviews MR1071525) suggested that such a theory over larger alphabets could have interesting connections to more standard complexity questions, and we illustrate some of those connections here. The connections between AC, cardinality, and complexity questions also allow us to highlight some of Selman's work. We hope this paper is more of a beginning than an end, introducing new concepts and raising many new questions, ripe for further research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Experience Report: Standards-Based Grading at Scale in Algorithms

We report our experiences implementing standards-based grading at scale in an Algorithms course, which serves as the terminal required CS Theory course in our department's undergraduate curriculum. The course had 200-400 students, taught by two instructors, eight graduate teaching assistants, and supported by two additional graders and several undergraduate course assistants. We highlight the role of standards-based grading in supporting our students during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude by detailing the successes and adjustments we would make to the course structure.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Matrix multiplication via matrix groups

In 2003, Cohn and Umans proposed a group-theoretic approach to bounding the exponent of matrix multiplication. Previous work within this approach ruled out certain families of groups as a route to obtaining $ω= 2$, while other families of groups remain potentially viable. In this paper we turn our attention to matrix groups, whose usefulness within this framework was relatively unexplored. We first show that groups of Lie type cannot prove $ω=2$ within the group-theoretic approach. This is based on a representation-theoretic argument that identifies the second-smallest dimension of an irreducible representation of a group as a key parameter that determines its viability in this framework. Our proof builds on Gowers' result concerning product-free sets in quasirandom groups. We then give another barrier that rules out certain natural matrix group constructions that make use of subgroups that are far from being self-normalizing. Our barrier results leave open several natural paths to obtain $ω= 2$ via matrix groups. To explore these routes we propose working in the continuous setting of Lie groups, in which we develop an analogous theory. Obtaining the analogue of $ω=2$ in this potentially easier setting is a key challenge that represents an intermediate goal short of actually proving $ω= 2$. We give two constructions in the continuous setting, each of which evades one of our two barriers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Boundaries of VP and VNP

One fundamental question in the context of the geometric complexity theory approach to the VP vs. VNP conjecture is whether VP = $\overline{\textrm{VP}}$, where VP is the class of families of polynomials that are of polynomial degree and can be computed by arithmetic circuits of polynomial size, and $\overline{\textrm{VP}}$ is the class of families of polynomials that are of polynomial degree and can be approximated infinitesimally closely by arithmetic circuits of polynomial size. The goal of this article is to study the conjecture in (Mulmuley, FOCS 2012) that $\overline{\textrm{VP}}$ is not contained in VP. Towards that end, we introduce three degenerations of VP (i.e., sets of points in $\overline{\textrm{VP}}$), namely the stable degeneration Stable-VP, the Newton degeneration Newton-VP, and the p-definable one-parameter degeneration VP*. We also introduce analogous degenerations of VNP. We show that Stable-VP $\subseteq$ Newton-VP $\subseteq$ VP* $\subseteq$ VNP, and Stable-VNP = Newton-VNP = VNP* = VNP. The three notions of degenerations and the proof of this result shed light on the problem of separating $\overline{\textrm{VP}}$ from VP. Although we do not yet construct explicit candidates for the polynomial families in $\overline{\textrm{VP}}\setminus$VP, we prove results which tell us where not to look for such families. Specifically, we demonstrate that the families in Newton-VP $\setminus$ VP based on semi-invariants of quivers would have to be non-generic by showing that, for many finite quivers (including some wild ones), any Newton degeneration of a generic semi-invariant can be computed by a circuit of polynomial size. We also show that the Newton degenerations of perfect matching Pfaffians, monotone arithmetic circuits over the reals, and Schur polynomials have polynomial-size circuits.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Matrix multiplication algorithms from group orbits

We show how to construct highly symmetric algorithms for matrix multiplication. In particular, we consider algorithms which decompose the matrix multiplication tensor into a sum of rank-1 tensors, where the decomposition itself consists of orbits under some finite group action. We show how to use the representation theory of the corresponding group to derive simple constraints on the decomposition, which we solve by hand for n=2,3,4,5, recovering Strassen's algorithm (in a particularly symmetric form) and new algorithms for larger n. While these new algorithms do not improve the known upper bounds on tensor rank or the matrix multiplication exponent, they are beautiful in their own right, and we point out modifications of this idea that could plausibly lead to further improvements. Our constructions also suggest further patterns that could be mined for new algorithms, including a tantalizing connection with lattices. In particular, using lattices we give the most transparent proof to date of Strassen's algorithm; the same proof works for all n, to yield a decomposition with $n^3 - n + 1$ terms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

NP-hard sets are not sparse unless P=NP: An exposition of a simple proof of Mahaney's Theorem, with applications

Mahaney's Theorem states that, assuming $\mathsf{P} \neq \mathsf{NP}$, no NP-hard set can have a polynomially bounded number of yes-instances at each input length. We give an exposition of a very simple unpublished proof of Manindra Agrawal whose ideas appear in Agrawal-Arvind ("Geometric sets of low information content," Theoret. Comp. Sci., 1996). This proof is so simple that it can easily be taught to undergraduates or a general graduate CS audience - not just theorists! - in about 10 minutes, which the author has done successfully several times. We also include applications of Mahaney's Theorem to fundamental questions that bright undergraduates would ask which could be used to fill the remaining hour of a lecture, as well as an application (due to Ikenmeyer, Mulmuley, and Walter, arXiv:1507.02955) to the representation theory of the symmetric group and the Geometric Complexity Theory Program. To this author, the fact that sparsity results on NP-complete sets have an application to classical questions in representation theory says that they are not only a gem of classical theoretical computer science, but indeed a gem of mathematics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Optimal high-level descriptions of dynamical systems

To analyze high-dimensional systems, many fields in science and engineering rely on high-level descriptions, sometimes called "macrostates," "coarse-grainings," or "effective theories". Examples of such descriptions include the thermodynamic properties of a large collection of point particles undergoing reversible dynamics, the variables in a macroeconomic model describing the individuals that participate in an economy, and the summary state of a cell composed of a large set of biochemical networks. Often these high-level descriptions are constructed without considering the ultimate reason for needing them in the first place. Here, we formalize and quantify one such purpose: the need to predict observables of interest concerning the high-dimensional system with as high accuracy as possible, while minimizing the computational cost of doing so. The resulting State Space Compression (SSC) framework provides a guide for how to solve for the {optimal} high-level description of a given dynamical system, rather than constructing it based on human intuition alone. In this preliminary report, we introduce SSC, and illustrate it with several information-theoretic quantifications of "accuracy", all with different implications for the optimal compression. We also discuss some other possible applications of SSC beyond the goal of accurate prediction. These include SSC as a measure of the complexity of a dynamical system, and as a way to quantify information flow between the scales of a system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Polynomial-time isomorphism test of groups that are tame extensions

We give new polynomial-time algorithms for testing isomorphism of a class of groups given by multiplication tables (GpI). Two results (Cannon & Holt, J. Symb. Comput. 2003; Babai, Codenotti & Qiao, ICALP 2012) imply that GpI reduces to the following: given groups G, H with characteristic subgroups of the same type and isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_p^d$, and given the coset of isomorphisms $Iso(G/\mathbb{Z}_p^d, H/\mathbb{Z}_p^d)$, compute Iso(G, H) in time poly(|G|). Babai & Qiao (STACS 2012) solved this problem when a Sylow p-subgroup of $G/\mathbb{Z}_p^d$ is trivial. In this paper, we solve the preceding problem in the so-called "tame" case, i.e., when a Sylow p-subgroup of $G/\mathbb{Z}_p^d$ is cyclic, dihedral, semi-dihedral, or generalized quaternion. These cases correspond exactly to the group algebra $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p[G/\mathbb{Z}_p^d]$ being of tame type, as in the celebrated tame-wild dichotomy in representation theory. We then solve new cases of GpI in polynomial time. Our result relies crucially on the divide-and-conquer strategy proposed earlier by the authors (CCC 2014), which splits GpI into two problems, one on group actions (representations), and one on group cohomology. Based on this strategy, we combine permutation group and representation algorithms with new mathematical results, including bounds on the number of indecomposable representations of groups in the tame case, and on the size of their cohomology groups. Finally, we note that when a group extension is not tame, the preceding bounds do not hold. This suggests a precise sense in which the tame-wild dichotomy from representation theory may also be a dividing line between the (currently) easy and hard instances of GpI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Circuit complexity, proof complexity, and polynomial identity testing

We introduce a new algebraic proof system, which has tight connections to (algebraic) circuit complexity. In particular, we show that any super-polynomial lower bound on any Boolean tautology in our proof system implies that the permanent does not have polynomial-size algebraic circuits (VNP is not equal to VP). As a corollary to the proof, we also show that super-polynomial lower bounds on the number of lines in Polynomial Calculus proofs (as opposed to the usual measure of number of monomials) imply the Permanent versus Determinant Conjecture. Note that, prior to our work, there was no proof system for which lower bounds on an arbitrary tautology implied any computational lower bound. Our proof system helps clarify the relationships between previous algebraic proof systems, and begins to shed light on why proof complexity lower bounds for various proof systems have been so much harder than lower bounds on the corresponding circuit classes. In doing so, we highlight the importance of polynomial identity testing (PIT) for understanding proof complexity. More specifically, we introduce certain propositional axioms satisfied by any Boolean circuit computing PIT. We use these PIT axioms to shed light on AC^0[p]-Frege lower bounds, which have been open for nearly 30 years, with no satisfactory explanation as to their apparent difficulty. We show that either: a) Proving super-polynomial lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege implies VNP does not have polynomial-size circuits of depth d - a notoriously open question for d at least 4 - thus explaining the difficulty of lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege, or b) AC^0[p]-Frege cannot efficiently prove the depth d PIT axioms, and hence we have a lower bound on AC^0[p]-Frege. Using the algebraic structure of our proof system, we propose a novel way to extend techniques from algebraic circuit complexity to prove lower bounds in proof complexity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Rotor-routing and spanning trees on planar graphs

The sandpile group Pic^0(G) of a finite graph G is a discrete analogue of the Jacobian of a Riemann surface which was rediscovered several times in the contexts of arithmetic geometry, self-organized criticality, random walks, and algorithms. Given a ribbon graph G, Holroyd et al. used the "rotor-routing" model to define a free and transitive action of Pic^0(G) on the set of spanning trees of G. However, their construction depends a priori on a choice of basepoint vertex. Ellenberg asked whether this action does in fact depend on the choice of basepoint. We answer this question by proving that the action of Pic^0(G) is independent of the basepoint if and only if G is a planar ribbon graph.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Report on "Mathematical Aspects of P vs. NP and its Variants."

This is a report on a workshop held August 1 to August 5, 2011 at the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM) at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, organized by Saugata Basu, Joseph M. Landsberg, and J. Maurice Rojas. We provide overviews of the more recent results presented at the workshop, including some works-in-progress as well as tentative and intriguing ideas for new directions. The main themes we discuss are representation theory and geometry in the Mulmuley-Sohoni Geometric Complexity Theory Program, and number theory and other ideas in the Blum-Shub-Smale model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Complexity Classes of Equivalence Problems Revisited

To determine if two lists of numbers are the same set, we sort both lists and see if we get the same result. The sorted list is a canonical form for the equivalence relation of set equality. Other canonical forms arise in graph isomorphism algorithms, and the equality of permutation groups given by generators. To determine if two graphs are cospectral (have the same eigenvalues), however, we compute their characteristic polynomials and see if they are the same; the characteristic polynomial is a complete invariant for the equivalence relation of cospectrality. This is weaker than a canonical form, and it is not known whether a polynomial-time canonical form for cospectrality exists. Note that it is a priori possible for an equivalence relation to be decidable in polynomial time without either a complete invariant or canonical form. Blass and Gurevich (SIAM J. Comput., 1984) ask whether these conditions on equivalence relations -- having an FP canonical form, having an FP complete invariant, and simply being in P -- are in fact different. They showed that this question requires non-relativizing techniques to resolve. Here we extend their results, and give new connections to probabilistic and quantum computation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Lie algebra conjugacy

We study the problem of matrix Lie algebra conjugacy. Lie algebras arise centrally in areas as diverse as differential equations, particle physics, group theory, and the Mulmuley--Sohoni Geometric Complexity Theory program. A matrix Lie algebra is a set L of matrices such that $A, B\in L$ implies $AB - BA \in L$. Two matrix Lie algebras are conjugate if there is an invertible matrix $M$ such that $L_1 = M L_2 M^{-1}$. We show that certain cases of Lie algebra conjugacy are equivalent to graph isomorphism. On the other hand, we give polynomial-time algorithms for other cases of Lie algebra conjugacy, which allow us to essentially derandomize a recent result of Kayal on affine equivalence of polynomials. Affine equivalence is related to many complexity problems such as factoring integers, graph isomorphism, matrix multiplication, and permanent versus determinant. Specifically, we show: Abelian Lie algebra conjugacy is equivalent to the code equivalence problem, and hence is as hard as graph isomorphism. Abelian Lie algebra conjugacy of $n \times n$ matrices can be solved in poly(n) time when the Lie algebras have dimension O(1). Semisimple Lie algebra conjugacy is equivalent to graph isomorphism. A Lie algebra is semisimple if it is a direct sum of simple Lie algebras. Semisimple Lie algebra conjugacy of $n \times n$ matrices can be solved in polynomial time when the Lie algebras consist of only $O(\log n)$ simple direct summands. Conjugacy of completely reducible Lie algebras---that is, a direct sum of an abelian and a semisimple Lie algebra---can be solved in polynomial time when the abelian part has dimension O(1) and the semisimple part has $O(\log n)$ simple direct summands.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access