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

Suryajith Chillara

Suryajith Chillara contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computational Complexity

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
3close 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

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On Hardness of Testing Equivalence to Sparse Polynomials Under Shifts

We say that two given polynomials $f, g \in R[X]$, over a ring $R$, are equivalent under shifts if there exists a vector $a \in R^n$ such that $f(X+a) = g(X)$. Grigoriev and Karpinski (FOCS 1990), Lakshman and Saunders (SICOMP, 1995), and Grigoriev and Lakshman (ISSAC 1995) studied the problem of testing polynomial equivalence of a given polynomial to any $t$-sparse polynomial, over the rational numbers, and gave exponential time algorithms. In this paper, we provide hardness results for this problem. Formally, for a ring $R$, let $\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ be the following decision problem. Given a polynomial $P(X)$, is there a vector $a$ such that $P(X+a)$ contains fewer monomials than $P(X)$. We show that $\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ is at least as hard as checking if a given system of polynomial equations over $R[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ has a solution (Hilbert's Nullstellensatz). As a consequence of this reduction, we get the following results. 1. $\mathrm{SparseShift}_\mathbb{Z}$ is undecidable. 2. For any ring $R$ (which is not a field) such that $\mathrm{HN}_R$ is $\mathrm{NP}_R$-complete over the Blum-Shub-Smale model of computation, $\mathrm{SparseShift}_{R}$ is also $\mathrm{NP}_{R}$-complete. In particular, $\mathrm{SparseShift}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ is also $\mathrm{NP}_{\mathbb{Z}}$-complete. We also study the gap version of the $\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ and show the following. 1. For every function $β: \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R}_+$ such that $β\in o(1)$, $N^β$-gap-$\mathrm{SparseShift}_\mathbb{Z}$ is also undecidable (where $N$ is the input length). 2. For $R=\mathbb{F}_p, \mathbb{Q}, \mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{Z}_q$ and for every $β>1$ the $β$-gap-$\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ problem is $\mathrm{NP}$-hard.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Depth-4 Lower Bounds, Determinantal Complexity : A Unified Approach

Tavenas has recently proved that any n^{O(1)}-variate and degree n polynomial in VP can be computed by a depth-4 circuit of size 2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}. So to prove VP not equal to VNP, it is sufficient to show that an explicit polynomial in VNP of degree n requires 2^{ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} size depth-4 circuits. Soon after Tavenas's result, for two different explicit polynomials, depth-4 circuit size lower bounds of 2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} have been proved Kayal et al. and Fournier et al. In particular, using combinatorial design Kayal et al.\ construct an explicit polynomial in VNP that requires depth-4 circuits of size 2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} and Fournier et al.\ show that iterated matrix multiplication polynomial (which is in VP) also requires 2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} size depth-4 circuits. In this paper, we identify a simple combinatorial property such that any polynomial f that satisfies the property would achieve similar circuit size lower bound for depth-4 circuits. In particular, it does not matter whether f is in VP or in VNP. As a result, we get a very simple unified lower bound analysis for the above mentioned polynomials. Another goal of this paper is to compare between our current knowledge of depth-4 circuit size lower bounds and determinantal complexity lower bounds. We prove the that the determinantal complexity of iterated matrix multiplication polynomial is Ω(dn) where d is the number of matrices and n is the dimension of the matrices. So for d=n, we get that the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial achieves the current best known lower bounds in both fronts: depth-4 circuit size and determinantal complexity. To the best of our knowledge, a Θ(n) bound for the determinantal complexity for the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial was known only for constant d>1 by Jansen.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

On the Limits of Depth Reduction at Depth 3 Over Small Finite Fields

Recently, Gupta et.al. [GKKS2013] proved that over Q any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in VP can also be computed by a depth three $ΣΠΣ$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log^{3/2}n)}$. Over fixed-size finite fields, Grigoriev and Karpinski proved that any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit that computes $Det_n$ (or $Perm_n$) must be of size $2^{Ω(n)}$ [GK1998]. In this paper, we prove that over fixed-size finite fields, any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit for computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial of $n$ generic matrices of size $n\times n$, must be of size $2^{Ω(n\log n)}$. The importance of this result is that over fixed-size fields there is no depth reduction technique that can be used to compute all the $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomials in VP by depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$. The result [GK1998] can only rule out such a possibility for depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n)}$. We also give an example of an explicit polynomial ($NW_{n,ε}(X)$) in VNP (not known to be in VP), for which any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit computing it (over fixed-size fields) must be of size $2^{Ω(n\log n)}$. The polynomial we consider is constructed from the combinatorial design. An interesting feature of this result is that we get the first examples of two polynomials (one in VP and one in VNP) such that they have provably stronger circuit size lower bounds than Permanent in a reasonably strong model of computation. Next, we prove that any depth 4 $ΣΠ^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}ΣΠ^{[\sqrt{n}]}$ circuit computing $NW_{n,ε}(X)$ (over any field) must be of size $2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. To the best of our knowledge, the polynomial $NW_{n,ε}(X)$ is the first example of an explicit polynomial in VNP such that it requires $2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ size depth four circuits, but no known matching upper bound.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access