Computations with polynomial evaluation oracle: ruling out superlinear SETH-based lower bounds
Tatiana Belova, Alexander S. Kulikov, Ivan Mihajlin, Olga Ratseeva, Grigory Reznikov, Denil Sharipov
Abstract
The field of fine-grained complexity aims at proving conditional lower bounds on the time complexity of computational problems. One of the most popular and successfully used assumptions, Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH), implies that SAT cannot be solved in 2 (1-ε)n time. In recent years, it has been proved that known algorithms for many problems are optimal under SETH. Despite wide applicability of SETH, for many problems, there are no known SETH-based lower bounds, so the quest for new reductions continues.
Two barriers for proving SETH-based lower bounds are known. Carmosino et al. (ITCS 2016) introduced the Nondeterministic Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (NSETH) stating that TAUT cannot be solved in time 2 (1-ε)n even if one allows nondeterminism. They used this hypothesis to show that some natural fine-grained reductions would be difficult to obtain: proving that, say, 3-SUM requires time n 1.5+ε under SETH, breaks NSETH and this, in turn, implies strong circuit lower bounds. Recently, Belova et al. (SODA 2023) introduced the so-called polynomial formulations to show that for many NPhard problems, proving any explicit exponential lower bound under SETH also implies strong circuit lower bounds.
In this paper, we combine the two barriers above. We prove that for a range of problems from P, including k-SUM and triangle detection, proving superlinear lower bounds under SETH is challenging as it implies new circuit lower bounds. To this end, we show that these problems can be solved in nearly linear time with oracle calls to evaluating a polynomial of constant degree. Then, we introduce a strengthening of SETH stating that solving SAT in time 2 (1-ε)n is difficult even if one has constant degree polynomial evaluation oracle calls. This hypothesis is stronger and less believable than SETH, but refuting it is still challenging: we show that this implies circuit lower bounds.
Finally, by considering computations that make oracle calls to evaluating constant degree polynomials depending on a small number of variables, we show connections between nondeterministic time lower bounds and arithmetic circuit lower bounds. Namely, we prove that if any of MAX-k-SAT, Binary Permanent, or a variant of Set Cover problems cannot be solved in co-nondeterministic time 2 (1-ε)n , for any ε > 0, then one gets arbitrary large polynomial arithmetic circuit lower bounds.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 815cae62-8cd3-4f62-a9bb-9a8f7ef33085Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on4
- 3.1n - o(n) circuit lower bounds for explicit functionsJiatu Li, Tianqi YangSTOC 2022 · 13 citations
- Settling SETH vs. approximate sparse directed unweighted diameter (up to (NU)NSETH)Ray LiSTOC 2021 · 5 citations
- Polynomial formulations as a barrier for reduction-based hardness proofsTatiana Belova, Alexander Golovnev, Alexander S. Kulikov, Ivan Mihajlin et al.SODA 2023 · 3 citations
- (Almost) Ruling Out SETH Lower Bounds for All-Pairs Max-FlowOhad TrabelsiSODA 2025
Related papers
- The Primal Pathwidth SETHMichael LampisSODA 2025 · 1 citation
- Self-Improvement for Circuit-Analysis ProblemsR. Ryan WilliamsSTOC 2024 · 1 citation
- Circuits and Backdoors: Five Shades of the SETHMichael LampisSODA 2026
- Hardness for triangle problems under even more believable hypotheses: reductions from real APSP, real 3SUM, and OVTimothy M. Chan, Virginia Vassilevska Williams, Yinzhan XuSTOC 2022
- On Exponential-Time Hypotheses, Derandomization, and Circuit Lower Bounds: Extended AbstractLijie Chen, Ron D. Rothblum, Roei Tell, Eylon YogevFOCS 2020 · 6 citations
