NP-hardness of testing equivalence to sparse polynomials and to constant-support polynomials
Abstract
An -sparse polynomial has at most monomials with nonzero coefficients. The Equivalence Testing problem for sparse polynomials (ETsparse) asks to decide if a given polynomial is equivalent to (i.e., in the orbit of) some -sparse polynomial. In other words, given and , ETsparse asks to check if there exist and such that is -sparse. We show that ETsparse is NP-hard over any field , if is given in the sparse representation, i.e., as a list of nonzero coefficients and exponent vectors. This answers a question posed in [Gupta-Saha-Thankey, SODA'23] and [Baraskar-Dewan-Saha, STACS'24]. The result implies that the Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) is NP-hard for a dense subclass of depth- arithmetic circuits if the input is given in sparse representation. We also show that approximating the smallest such that a given -sparse polynomial is in the orbit of some -sparse polynomial to within a factor of is NP-hard for any ; observe that -factor approximation is trivial as the input is -sparse. Finally, we show that for any constant , checking if a polynomial (given in sparse representation) is in the orbit of some support- polynomial is NP-hard. Support of a polynomial is the maximum number of variables present in any monomial of . These results are obtained via direct reductions from the -SAT problem.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.2410.12251,
title = {NP-hardness of testing equivalence to sparse polynomials and to constant-support polynomials},
author = {Omkar Baraskar and Agrim Dewan and Chandan Saha and Pulkit Sinha},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12251},
year = {2024}
}
Comments
A preliminary version of the paper appeared in the proceedings of ICALP 2024. This version is slightly stronger than the ECCC one: a) We show it is NP-hard to test equivalence to support-5 polynomials (instead of support-6). b) We adapt the proof technique to show it is NP-hard to test equivalence to sparse polynomials under translations only; A suitable gap version of the result is also shown