skip to main content
10.1145/2746539.2746594acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Matching Triangles and Basing Hardness on an Extremely Popular Conjecture

Published:14 June 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to the lack of unconditional polynomial lower bounds, it is now in fashion to prove conditional lower bounds in order to advance our understanding of the class P. The vast majority of these lower bounds are based on one of three famous hypotheses: the 3-SUM conjecture, the APSP conjecture, and the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis. Only circumstantial evidence is known in support of these hypotheses, and no formal relationship between them is known. In hopes of obtaining "less conditional" and therefore more reliable lower bounds, we consider the conjecture that at least one of the above three hypotheses is true. We design novel reductions from 3-SUM, APSP, and CNF-SAT, and derive interesting consequences of this very plausible conjecture, including: Tight n3-o(1) lower bounds for purely-combinatorial problems about the triangles in unweighted graphs. New n1-o(1) lower bounds for the amortized update and query times of dynamic algorithms for single-source reachability, strongly connected components, and Max-Flow. New n1.5-o(1) lower bound for computing a set of n st-maximum-flow values in a directed graph with n nodes and ~O(n) edges. There is a hierarchy of natural graph problems on n nodes with complexity nc for c ∈ (2,3).

Only slightly non-trivial consequences of this conjecture were known prior to our work. Along the way we also obtain new conditional lower bounds for the Single-Source-Max-Flow problem.

References

  1. Amir Abboud, Fabrizio Grandoni, and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. Subcubic equivalences between graph centrality problems, apsp and diameter. SODA, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Amir Abboud and Kevin Lewi. Exact weight subgraphs and the k-sum conjecture. In ICALP (1), pages 1--12, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Amir Abboud, Kevin Lewi, and Ryan Williams. Losing weight by gaining edges. In Algorithms - ESA 2014 - 22th Annual European Symposium, Wroclaw, Poland, September 8--10, 2014. Proceedings, pages 1--12, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Amir Abboud, Ryan Williams, and Huacheng Yu. More applications of the polynomial method to algorithm design. SODA, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Amir Abboud and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. Popular conjectures imply strong lower bounds for dynamic problems. FOCS, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Amir Abboud, Virginia Vassilevska Williams, and Oren Weimann. Consequences of faster alignment of sequences. In ICALP (1), pages 39--51, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Amihood Amir, Timothy M. Chan, Moshe Lewenstein, and Noa Lewenstein. On hardness of jumbled indexing. In Automata, Languages, and Programming - 41st International Colloquium, ICALP 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8--11, 2014, Proceedings, Part I, pages 114--125, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Boris Aronov and Sariel Har-Peled. On approximating the depth and related problems. In Proc. SODA, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. I. Baran, E.D. Demaine, and M. Patraşcu. Subquadratic algorithms for $3$sum. Algorithmica, 50(4):584--596, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gill Barequet and Sariel Har-Peled. Some variants of polygonal containment and minimum hausdorff distance undertranslation are 3SUM-hard. In Proc. SODA, pages 862--863, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. A. Bender, J. T. Fineman, S. Gilbert, and R. E. Tarjan. A new approach to incremental cycle detection and related problems. CoRR, abs/1112.0784, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Andreas Björklund, Rasmus Pagh, Virginia Vassilevska Williams, and Uri Zwick. Listing triangles. In Automata, Languages, and Programming - 41st International Colloquium, ICALP 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8--11, 2014, Proceedings, Part I, pages 223--234, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michele Borassi, Pierluigi Crescenzi, and Michel Habib. Into the square - on the complexity of quadratic-time solvable problems. CoRR, abs/1407.4972, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. David Bremner, Timothy M. Chan, Erik D. Demaine, Jeff Erickson, Ferran Hurtado, John Iacono, Stefan Langerman, Mihai Patrascu, and Perouz Taslakian. Necklaces, convolutions, and X+Y. Algorithmica, 69(2):294--314, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Karl Bringmann. Why walking the dog takes time: Frechet distance has no strongly subquadratic algorithms unless SETH fails. FOCS, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, and Ramamohan Paturi. A duality between clause width and clause density for SAT. In 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2006), 16--20 July 2006, Prague, Czech Republic, pages 252--260, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, and Ramamohan Paturi. The complexity of satisfiability of small depth circuits. In Parameterized and Exact Computation, pages 75--85. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. M. Chan. Dynamic subgraph connectivity with geometric applications. SIAM J. Comput., 36(3):681--694, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. T. M. Chan, M. Patraşcu, and L. Roditty. Dynamic connectivity: Connecting to networks and geometry. In FOCS, pages 95--104, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Chen, P. Hsu, and K. Chao. Approximate matching for run-length encoded strings is 3sum-hard. In CPM, pages 168--179. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Otfried Cheong, Alon Efrat, and Sariel Har-Peled. On finding a guard that sees most and a shop that sells most. In Proc. SODA, pages 1098--1107, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ho Yee Cheung, Lap Chi Lau, and Kai Man Leung. Graph connectivities, network coding, and expander graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(3):733--751, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Paul Christiano, Jonathan A. Kelner, Aleksander Madry, Daniel A. Spielman, and Shang-Hua Teng. Electrical flows, laplacian systems, and faster approximation of maximum flow in undirected graphs. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2011, San Jose, CA, USA, 6--8 June 2011, pages 273--282, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Marek Cygan, Stefan Kratsch, and Jesper Nederlof. Fast Hamiltonicity checking via bases of perfect matchings. In STOC, pages 301--310, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Evgeny Dantsin and Alexander Wolpert. On moderately exponential time for SAT. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, pages 313--325, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mark de Berg, Marko de Groot, and Mark H. Overmars. Perfect binary space partitions. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, 7(81):81--91, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. Demetrescu and G. F. Italiano. Fully dynamic transitive closure: Breaking through the o(n2) barrier. In Proc. FOCS, volume 41, pages 381--389, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Duan. New data structures for subgraph connectivity. In ICALP (1), pages 201--212, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. F. Eisenbrand and F. Grandoni. On the complexity of fixed parameter clique and dominating set. Theor. Comp. Sci., 326(1--3):57--67, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. Erickson. New lower bounds for convex hull problems in odd dimensions. SIAM Journal on Computing, 28(4):1198--1214, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. S. Even and Y. Shiloach. An on-line edge-deletion problem. J. ACM, 28(1):1--4, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. D. Frigioni and G. F. Italiano. Dynamically switching vertices in planar graphs. Algorithmica, 28(1):76--103, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. A. Gajentaan and M. Overmars. On a class of o(n2) problems in computational geometry. Computational Geometry, 5(3):165--185, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. François Le Gall. Powers of tensors and fast matrix multiplication. CoRR, abs/1401.7714, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. B. Haeupler, T. Kavitha, R. Mathew, S. Sen, and R. E. Tarjan. Incremental cycle detection, topological ordering, and strong component maintenance. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 8(1):3, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jianxiu Hao and James B. Orlin. A faster algorithm for finding the minimum cut in a directed graph. J. Algorithms, 17(3):424--446, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Ramesh Hariharan, Telikepalli Kavitha, Debmalya Panigrahi, and Anand Bhalgat. An o(mn) gomory-hu tree construction algorithm for unweighted graphs. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, San Diego, California, USA, June 11--13, 2007, pages 605--614, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Monika Henzinger, Sebastian Krinninger, and Danupon Nanongkai. Sublinear-time decremental algorithms for single-source reachability and shortest paths on directed graphs. In Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2014, New York, NY, USA, May 31 - June 03, 2014, pages 674--683, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. E. A. Hirsch. Two new upper bounds for SAT. In Proc. SODA, pages 521--530, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. R. Impagliazzo and R. Paturi. On the complexity of k-sat. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 62(2):367--375, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. R. Impagliazzo, R. Paturi, and F. Zane. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 63(4):512--530, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. G. F. Italiano. Finding paths and deleting edges in directed acyclic graphs. Inf. Process. Lett., 28(1):5--11, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Z. Jafargholi and E. Viola. 3sum, 3xor, triangles. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 20:9, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Hamidreza Jahanjou, Eric Miles, and Emanuele Viola. Local reductions. CoRR, abs/1311.3171, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Allan Grønlund Jørgensen and Seth Pettie. Threesomes, degenerates, and love triangles. CoRR, abs/1404.0799, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Narendra Karmarkar. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, April 30 - May 2, 1984, Washington, DC, USA, pages 302--311, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Jonathan A. Kelner, Yin Tat Lee, Lorenzo Orecchia, and Aaron Sidford. An almost-linear-time algorithm for approximate max flow in undirected graphs, and its multicommodity generalizations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2014, Portland, Oregon, USA, January 5--7, 2014, pages 217--226, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Tsvi Kopelowitz, Seth Pettie, and Ely Porat. 3sum hardness in (dynamic) data structures. CoRR, abs/1407.6756, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. J. Lacki. Improved deterministic algorithms for decremental reachability and strongly connected components. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 9(3):27, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Jakub Lacki, Yahav Nussbaum, Piotr Sankowski, and Christian Wulff-Nilsen. Single source - all sinks max flows in planar digraphs. In 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2012, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, October 20--23, 2012, pages 599--608, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. Following the path of least resistance : An o(m sqrt(n)) algorithm for the minimum cost flow problem. CoRR, abs/1312.6713, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, and Saket Saurabh. Known algorithms on graphs on bounded treewidth are probably optimal. In SODA, pages 777--789, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. J. Erickson M. Soss and M. H. Overmars. Preprocessing chains for fast dihedral rotations is hard or even impossible. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, 26(3):235--246, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Aleksander Madry. Navigating central path with electrical flows: From flows to matchings, and back. In 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2013, 26--29 October, 2013, Berkeley, CA, USA, pages 253--262, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Yurii Nesterov and A. S. Nemirovskii. An interior-point method for generalized linear-fractional programming. Math. Program., 69:177--204, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. R. Paturi, P. Pudlák, M. E. Saks, and F. Zane. An improved exponential-time algorithm for k-SAT. J. ACM, 52(3):337--364, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. M. Patraşcu. Towards polynomial lower bounds for dynamic problems. In STOC, pages 603--610, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. M. Patraşcu and E. D. Demaine. Logarithmic lower bounds in the cell-probe model. SIAM J. Comput., 35(4):932--963, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. M. Patraşcu and R. Williams. On the possibility of faster SAT algorithms. In Proc. SODA, pages 1065--1075, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. L. Roditty. Decremental maintenance of strongly connected components. In SODA, pages 1143--1150, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. L. Roditty and V. Vassilevska Williams. Fast approximation algorithms for the diameter and radius of sparse graphs. In Proceedings of the 45th annual ACM symposium on Symposium on theory of computing, STOC '13, pages 515--524, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. L. Roditty and U. Zwick. Improved dynamic reachability algorithms for directed graphs. In FOCS, pages 679--689, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Liam Roditty and Uri Zwick. On dynamic shortest paths problems. In ESA, pages 580--591, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. P. Sankowski. Dynamic transitive closure via dynamic matrix inverse. In Proc. FOCS, volume 45, pages 509--517, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. U. Schöning. A probabilistic algorithm for k-SAT and constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. FOCS, pages 410--414, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Jonah Sherman. Nearly maximum flows in nearly linear time. In 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2013, 26--29 October, 2013, Berkeley, CA, USA, pages 263--269, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng. Nearly-linear time algorithms for graph partitioning, graph sparsification, and solving linear systems. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, IL, USA, June 13--16, 2004, pages 81--90, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. M. Thorup. Near-optimal fully-dynamic graph connectivity. In STOC, pages 343--350, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. V. Vassilevska and R. Williams. Finding, minimizing, and counting weighted subgraphs. In Proc. STOC, pages 455--464, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. R. Williams. A new algorithm for optimal constraint satisfaction and its implications. In Proc. ICALP, pages 1227--1237, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Ryan Williams. Faster all-pairs shortest paths via circuit complexity. In Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2014, New York, NY, USA, May 31 - June 03, 2014, pages 664--673, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Ryan Williams and Huacheng Yu. Finding orthogonal vectors in discrete structures. In SODA, pages 1867--1877, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. V. Vassilevska Williams and R. Williams. Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix and triangle problems. In Proc. FOCS, pages 645--654, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Virginia Vassilevska Williams. Multiplying matrices faster than coppersmith-winograd. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference, STOC 2012, New York, NY, USA, May 19 - 22, 2012, pages 887--898, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Matching Triangles and Basing Hardness on an Extremely Popular Conjecture

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      STOC '15: Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing
      June 2015
      916 pages
      ISBN:9781450335362
      DOI:10.1145/2746539

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 June 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      STOC '15 Paper Acceptance Rate93of347submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

      Upcoming Conference

      STOC '24
      56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
      June 24 - 28, 2024
      Vancouver , BC , Canada

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader