BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Ryan Williams

Ryan Williams contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computational ComplexityData Structures and AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceDatabasesDiscrete Mathematics

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On the Number of Quantifiers as a Complexity Measure

In 1981, Neil Immerman described a two-player game, which he called the "separability game" \cite{Immerman81}, that captures the number of quantifiers needed to describe a property in first-order logic. Immerman's paper laid the groundwork for studying the number of quantifiers needed to express properties in first-order logic, but the game seemed to be too complicated to study, and the arguments of the paper almost exclusively used quantifier rank as a lower bound on the total number of quantifiers. However, last year Fagin, Lenchner, Regan and Vyas rediscovered the games, provided some tools for analyzing them, and showed how to utilize them to characterize the number of quantifiers needed to express linear orders of different sizes. In this paper, we push forward in the study of number of quantifiers as a bona fide complexity measure by establishing several new results. First we carefully distinguish minimum number of quantifiers from the more usual descriptive complexity measures, minimum quantifier rank and minimum number of variables. Then, for each positive integer $k$, we give an explicit example of a property of finite structures (in particular, of finite graphs) that can be expressed with a sentence of quantifier rank $k$, but where the same property needs $2^{Ω(k^2)}$ quantifiers to be expressed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Lower Bounds Against Sparse Symmetric Functions of ACC Circuits: Expanding the Reach of $\#$SAT Algorithms

We continue the program of proving circuit lower bounds via circuit satisfiability algorithms. So far, this program has yielded several concrete results, proving that functions in $\text{Quasi-NP} = \text{NTIME}[n^{(\log n)^{O(1)}}]$ and $\text{NEXP}$ do not have small circuits from various circuit classes ${\cal C}$, by showing that ${\cal C}$ admits non-trivial satisfiability and/or $\#$SAT algorithms which beat exhaustive search by a minor amount. In this paper, we present a new strong lower bound consequence of non-trivial $\#$SAT algorithm for a circuit class ${\mathcal C}$. Say a symmetric Boolean function $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is sparse if it outputs $1$ on $O(1)$ values of $\sum_i x_i$. We show that for every sparse $f$, and for all "typical" ${\cal C}$, faster $\#$SAT algorithms for ${\cal C}$ circuits actually imply lower bounds against the circuit class $f \circ {\cal C}$, which may be stronger than ${\cal C}$ itself. In particular: $\#$SAT algorithms for $n^k$-size ${\cal C}$-circuits running in $2^n/n^k$ time (for all $k$) imply $\text{NEXP}$ does not have $f \circ {\cal C}$-circuits of polynomial size. $\#$SAT algorithms for $2^{n^ε}$-size ${\cal C}$-circuits running in $2^{n-n^ε}$ time (for some $ε> 0$) imply $\text{Quasi-NP}$ does not have $f \circ {\cal C}$-circuits of polynomial size. Applying $\#$SAT algorithms from the literature, one immediate corollary of our results is that $\text{Quasi-NP}$ does not have $\text{EMAJ} \circ \text{ACC}^0 \circ \text{THR}$ circuits of polynomial size, where $\text{EMAJ}$ is the "exact majority" function, improving previous lower bounds against $\text{ACC}^0$ [Williams JACM'14] and $\text{ACC}^0 \circ \text{THR}$ [Williams STOC'14], [Murray-Williams STOC'18]. This is the first nontrivial lower bound against such a circuit class.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Tight Hardness for Shortest Cycles and Paths in Sparse Graphs

Fine-grained reductions have established equivalences between many core problems with $\tilde{O}(n^3)$-time algorithms on $n$-node weighted graphs, such as Shortest Cycle, All-Pairs Shortest Paths (APSP), Radius, Replacement Paths, Second Shortest Paths, and so on. These problems also have $\tilde{O}(mn)$-time algorithms on $m$-edge $n$-node weighted graphs, and such algorithms have wider applicability. Are these $mn$ bounds optimal when $m \ll n^2$? Starting from the hypothesis that the minimum weight $(2\ell+1)$-Clique problem in edge weighted graphs requires $n^{2\ell+1-o(1)}$ time, we prove that for all sparsities of the form $m = Θ(n^{1+1/\ell})$, there is no $O(n^2 + mn^{1-ε})$ time algorithm for $ε>0$ for \emph{any} of the below problems: Minimum Weight $(2\ell+1)$-Cycle in a directed weighted graph, Shortest Cycle in a directed weighted graph, APSP in a directed or undirected weighted graph, Radius (or Eccentricities) in a directed or undirected weighted graph, Wiener index of a directed or undirected weighted graph, Replacement Paths in a directed weighted graph, Second Shortest Path in a directed weighted graph, Betweenness Centrality of a given node in a directed weighted graph. That is, we prove hardness for a variety of sparse graph problems from the hardness of a dense graph problem. Our results also lead to new conditional lower bounds from several related hypothesis for unweighted sparse graph problems including $k$-cycle, shortest cycle, Radius, Wiener index and APSP.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds

A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial time lower bounds for solving natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, Mod6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. The proofs of these lower bounds follow a certain proof-by-contradiction strategy that we call alternation-trading. An important open problem is to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be. We propose a methodology for studying these proofs that makes them amenable to both formal analysis and automated theorem proving. We prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. Implementing a small-scale theorem prover based on this result, we extract new human-readable time lower bounds for several problems. This framework can also be used to prove concrete limitations on the current techniques.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Resolving the Complexity of Some Data Privacy Problems

We formally study two methods for data sanitation that have been used extensively in the database community: k-anonymity and l-diversity. We settle several open problems concerning the difficulty of applying these methods optimally, proving both positive and negative results: 1. 2-anonymity is in P. 2. The problem of partitioning the edges of a triangle-free graph into 4-stars (degree-three vertices) is NP-hard. This yields an alternative proof that 3-anonymity is NP-hard even when the database attributes are all binary. 3. 3-anonymity with only 27 attributes per record is MAX SNP-hard. 4. For databases with n rows, k-anonymity is in O(4^n poly(n)) time for all k > 1. 5. For databases with n rows and l <= log_{2c+2} log n attributes over an alphabet of cardinality c = O(1), k-anonymity is in P. Assuming c, l = O(1), k-anonymity is in O(n). 6. 3-diversity with binary attributes is NP-hard, with one sensitive attribute. 7. 2-diversity with binary attributes is NP-hard, with three sensitive attributes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access