On Exponential-Time Hypotheses, Derandomization, and Circuit Lower Bounds: Extended Abstract
Lijie Chen, Ron D. Rothblum, Roei Tell, Eylon Yogev
Abstract
The Exponential-Time Hypothesis (ETH) is a strengthening of the P ≠ NP conjecture, stating that 3-SAT on n variables cannot be solved in (uniform) time 2ε·n, for some . In recent years, analogous hypotheses that are “exponentially-strong” forms of other classical complexity conjectures (such as NP ⊄ eq BPP or coNP ⊄ eq NP) have also been introduced, and have become widely influential. In this work, we focus on the interaction of exponential-time hypotheses with the fundamental and closely-related questions of derandomization and circuit lower bounds. We show that even relatively-mild variants of exponential-time hypotheses have far-reaching implications to derandomization, circuit lower bounds, and the connections between the two. Specifically, we prove that: 1) The Randomized Exponential-Time Hypothesis (rETH) implies that BPP can be simulated on “average-case” in deterministic (nearly-)polynomial-time (i.e., in time 2 O(log(n))=nloglog(n)O(1)). The derandomization relies on a conditional construction of a pseudorandom generator with near-exponential stretch (i.e., with seed length O(log(n))); this significantly improves the state-of-the-art in uniform “hardness-to-randomness” results, which previously only yielded pseudorandom generators with sub-exponential stretch from such hypotheses. 2) The Non-Deterministic Exponential-Time Hypothesis (NETH) implies that derandomization of BPP is completely equivalent to circuit lower bounds against E, and in particular that pseudorandom generators are necessary for derandomization. In fact, we show that the foregoing equivalence follows from a very weak version of NETH, and we also show that this very weak version is necessary to prove a slightly stronger conclusion that we deduce from it. Lastly, we show that disproving certain exponential-time hypotheses requires proving breakthrough circuit lower bounds. In particular, if CireuitSAT for circuits over n bits of size poly(n) can be solved by probabilistic algorithms in time 2n/polylog(n), then BPε does not have circuits of quasilinear size.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get df1bce65-5a7f-4bdc-aac9-a78c215b823cCited by top-tier papers2
- Indistinguishability Obfuscation, Range Avoidance, and Bounded ArithmeticRahul Ilango, Jiatu Li, R. Ryan WilliamsSTOC 2023 · 17 citations
- Self-Improvement for Circuit-Analysis ProblemsR. Ryan WilliamsSTOC 2024 · 1 citation
Related papers
- Simple and fast derandomization from very hard functions: eliminating randomness at almost no costLijie Chen, Roei TellSTOC 2021 · 3 citations
- Nearly Optimal Pseudorandomness From HardnessDean Doron, Dana Moshkovitz, Justin Oh, David ZuckermanFOCS 2020 · 15 citations
- Computations with polynomial evaluation oracle: ruling out superlinear SETH-based lower boundsTatiana Belova, Alexander S. Kulikov, Ivan Mihajlin, Olga Ratseeva et al.SODA 2024 · 1 citation
- Treewidth Inapproximability and Tight ETH Lower BoundÉdouard BonnetSTOC 2025 · 1 citation
- Polynomial formulations as a barrier for reduction-based hardness proofsTatiana Belova, Alexander Golovnev, Alexander S. Kulikov, Ivan Mihajlin et al.SODA 2023 · 3 citations
