DOCSLIB.ORG

Probabilistic Checking of Proofs and Hardness of Approximation Problems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Probabilistic Checking of Proofs and Hardness of Approximation Problems Probabilistic Checking of Pro ofs and Hardness of Approximation Problems Sanjeev Arora CSTR Revised version of a dissertation submitted at CS Division UC Berkeley in August Princeton techrep orts are available in p ostscript form via anonymous ftp from ftpcsprincetonedu InterNet address You may log in as anonymous and giveyour email ad dress as password Change to the directory reports The le README gives details and the le INDEX lists the numb ers and the titles of all rep orts This rep ort is numb ered Hardcopies of this rep ort are available for a charge of only US dollar checks accepted from the following address Technical Rep orts Department of Computer Science Princeton University Olden Street Princeton NJ Probabilistic Checking of Pro ofs and Hardness of Approximation Problems c Copyright by Sanjeev Arora The dissertation committee consisted of Professor Umesh V Vazirani Chair Professor Richard M Karp Professor John W Addison The authors current address Department of Computer Science Olden St Princeton University Princeton NJ email aroracsprincetonedu Tomyparents and members of my family including the ones who just joined Contents Intro duction This dissertation Hardness of Approximation A New Characterization of NP Knowledge assumed of the Reader Old vs New Views of NP The Old View Co okLevin Theorem Optimization and Approximation A New View of NP The PCP Theorem Connection to Approximation History and Background PCPAnOverview Co des Pro of of the PCP Theorem an Outline History and Background A Pro of of the PCP Theorem Polynomial Co des and Their Use Algebraic Pro cedures for Polynomial Co des An Application Aggregating Queries AVerier Using O log n Random Bits A Less EcientVerier Checking Split Assignments AVerier using O query bits Checking Split Assignments The Algebraic Pro cedures SumCheck Pro cedures for the Linear Function Co de Pro cedures for General Polynomial Co de The Overall Picture HistoryAttributions iii The Lowdegree Test The Bivariate Case Correctness of the Lowdegree Test Discussion History Hardness of Approximations The Canonical Problems GapPreserving Reductions MAXSNP Problems on Lattices Co des Linear Systems The Problems The Results Signicance of the Results A Set of Vectors Reductions to NV and others Hardness of Approximating SV Proving n approximations NPhard MAXSATISFY Other Inapproximability Results A Survey Historical NotesFurther Reading eriers that make queries PCP V Hardness of Approximating Lab el Cover Hardness of SV Unifying Lab elCover and MAXSAT Applications of PCP Techniques Strong Forms of the PCP Theorem The Applications Exact Characterization of Nondeterministic Time Classes Transparent Math Pro ofs Checking Computations Micalis Certicates for VLSI Chips Characterization of PSPACE Condon et al Probabilistically Checkable Co des Kilians ZK arguments Khanna et als Structure Theorem for MAXSNP The Hardness of nding Small Cliques Op en Problems Hardness of Approximations Proving hardness where no results exist Improving existing hardness results Obtaining Logical Insightin to Approximation Problems Op en Problems connected with PCP techniques Do es the PCP theorem have a simpler pro of A Library of Useful Facts List of Figures Tableau and window The windowshows the nite control initially in state q and reading a The control overwrites the with a moves one cell to right and changes state to q Verier in the denition of PCP a Pro of that V exp ects b Pro of that V exp ects Shaded area in new represents the assignment split into Q parts that corresp onds to V s random seed r m A function from h to F can b e extended to a p olynomial of degree mh A table of partial sums may b e conceptualized as a tree of branching factor q The Sumcheckfollows a random path down this tree How to enco de an assignment so that the PCPlog n verier accepts with probability Lab el Cover instance for formula x x x x x x The symb ols on edge e representmap e Figure showing the epro jections of vectors V and V in the vector v a v a set where e v v vii viii Acknowledgements Imust acknowledge my great debt to my advisor Umesh Vazirani for the nurturing and advising the sake and the dinners he has provided me over the last four years My only regret is that I never to ok squash lessons from him even though I kept planning to The theory group at Berkeley wasawonderful enviroment in which to b e a graduate student Thanks to Dick Karp Manuel Blum Mike LubyRaimund Seidel Gene Lawler and Abhiram Ranade for creating the environment Dicks phenomenally clear mind proved a go o d resource on many o ccasions Manuel and Mike got me thinking ab out manyofthe problems up on which this dissertation is based Some of Mikes unpublished observations were central to guiding my dissertation research in the right direction Iwould like to thank my colleagues with whom I did this research Sp ecial thanks go to Madhu Sudan and Muli Safra for their patience while collab orating with me in my early gradscho ol days I learnt a lot from them I also thank Carsten Lund Jacques Stern Laci Babai Mario Szegedy Ra jeev Motwani and Z Sweedyk for collab orating with me Thanks to John Addison for serving on my dissertation committee and giving me lots of comments in his usual precise style Thanks to all my fellowstudents in the department and the p ostdo cs at ICSI for talks TGIFs happy hours and bullsessions Thanks also to all the p eople at MIT who got me interested in theoretical computer science and softball during my undergraduate years I am esp ecially grateful to Bruce Maggs Tom Leighton Mike Sipser Mauricio Karchmer Richard Stanley Charles Leiserson and David Shmoys There are many others who over the years have help ed me develop as a p erson and a researcher I will not attempt to list their names for fear that anysuch list will b e incomplete but I express my thanks to them all My deep est gratitude is to my family for instilling a love of knowledge in me I hop e my father is not to o dismayed that I am contributing two more professors to the family FinallyIwould like to thank Silvia She was clearly my b est discovery at Berkeley Chapter Intro duction The study of the diculty or hardness of computational problems has two parts The theory of algorithms is concerned with the design of ecient algorithmsin other w ords with proving upp er b ounds on the amount of computational resources required to solve a sp ecic problem Complexity theory is concerned with proving the corresp onding lower b ounds Our work is part of the second endeavormore sp ecically the endeavor to prove problems computationally dicult or hard Despite some notable successes lower b ound research is still in a stage of infancy progress on its op en problems has b een slow Central among these op en problems is the question whether P NP In other words is there a problem that can b e solved in p olynomial time on a nondeterministic Turing Machine but cannot b e solved in p olynomial time deterministically The conjecture P NP is widely b elieved but currently our chances of proving it app ear slim If we assume that P NP however then another interesting question arises given any sp ecic optimization problem of interest is it in P or not Complexity theory has had remarkable success in answering such questions The theory of NPcompleteness due to Co ok Levin and Karp allows us to prove that explicit problems are not in P assuming P NP The main idea is to prove the given problem NPhard that is to give a p olynomial time reduction from instances of any NP problem to instances of the given problem If an NPhard problem were to have a p olynomialtime algorithm so w ould every NP problem whichwould contradict the assumption P NP Hence if P NP then an NPhard problem has no p olynomialtime algorithm To put it dierently an NPhard problem is no easier than any other problem in NP The success of the theory of NP completeness lay in the unityitbrought to the study of computational complexity a wide array of optimization problems arising in practice and which had hitherto deed all eorts of algorithm designers to nd ecient algorithms were proved NPhard in one swo op using essentially the same kind of reductions For a list of NPhard problems c see the survey by Garey and Johnson GJ CHAPTER INTRODUCTION But one ma jor group of problems seemed not to t in the framework of NPcompleteness approximation problems Approximating an NPhard optimization problem within a factor c means to compute solutions whose cost is within a multiplicative factor c of the cost of the optimal solution Such solutions would suce in practice if c were close enough to For some NPhard problems weknowhow to compute such solutions in p olynomial timefor most it seemed that ev en approximation was hard at least a substantial b o dy of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interactive Proof Systems and Alternating Time-Space Complexity
    Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 55-73 55 Elsevier Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity Lance Fortnow” and Carsten Lund** Department of Computer Science, Unicersity of Chicago. 1100 E. 58th Street, Chicago, IL 40637, USA Abstract Fortnow, L. and C. Lund, Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity, Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 55-73. We show a rough equivalence between alternating time-space complexity and a public-coin interactive proof system with the verifier having a polynomial-related time-space complexity. Special cases include the following: . All of NC has interactive proofs, with a log-space polynomial-time public-coin verifier vastly improving the best previous lower bound of LOGCFL for this model (Fortnow and Sipser, 1988). All languages in P have interactive proofs with a polynomial-time public-coin verifier using o(log’ n) space. l All exponential-time languages have interactive proof systems with public-coin polynomial-space exponential-time verifiers. To achieve better bounds, we show how to reduce a k-tape alternating Turing machine to a l-tape alternating Turing machine with only a constant factor increase in time and space. 1. Introduction In 1981, Chandra et al. [4] introduced alternating Turing machines, an extension of nondeterministic computation where the Turing machine can make both existential and universal moves. In 1985, Goldwasser et al. [lo] and Babai [l] introduced interactive proof systems, an extension of nondeterministic computation consisting of two players, an infinitely powerful prover and a probabilistic polynomial-time verifier. The prover will try to convince the verifier of the validity of some statement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Space Bounded Interactive Proof Systems
    The Complexity of Space Bounded Interactive Proof Systems ANNE CONDON Computer Science Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison 1 INTRODUCTION Some of the most exciting developments in complexity theory in recent years concern the complexity of interactive proof systems, defined by Goldwasser, Micali and Rackoff (1985) and independently by Babai (1985). In this paper, we survey results on the complexity of space bounded interactive proof systems and their applications. An early motivation for the study of interactive proof systems was to extend the notion of NP as the class of problems with efficient \proofs of membership". Informally, a prover can convince a verifier in polynomial time that a string is in an NP language, by presenting a witness of that fact to the verifier. Suppose that the power of the verifier is extended so that it can flip coins and can interact with the prover during the course of a proof. In this way, a verifier can gather statistical evidence that an input is in a language. As we will see, the interactive proof system model precisely captures this in- teraction between a prover P and a verifier V . In the model, the computation of V is probabilistic, but is typically restricted in time or space. A language is accepted by the interactive proof system if, for all inputs in the language, V accepts with high probability, based on the communication with the \honest" prover P . However, on inputs not in the language, V rejects with high prob- ability, even when communicating with a \dishonest" prover. In the general model, V can keep its coin flips secret from the prover.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitin Saurabh the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai
    ALGEBRAIC MODELS OF COMPUTATION By Nitin Saurabh The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai. A thesis submitted to the Board of Studies in Mathematical Sciences In partial fulllment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science of HOMI BHABHA NATIONAL INSTITUTE April 2012 CERTIFICATE Certied that the work contained in the thesis entitled Algebraic models of Computation, by Nitin Saurabh, has been carried out under my supervision and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere for a degree. Meena Mahajan Theoretical Computer Science Group The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Prof. Meena Mahajan for her invaluable guidance and continuous support since my undergraduate days. Her expertise and ideas helped me comprehend new techniques. Her guidance during the preparation of this thesis has been invaluable. I also thank her for always being there to discuss and clarify any matter. I am extremely grateful to all the faculty members of theory group at IMSc and CMI for their continuous encouragement and giving me an opportunity to learn from them. I would like to thank all my friends, at IMSc and CMI, for making my stay in Chennai a memorable one. Most of all, I take this opportunity to thank my parents, my uncle and my brother. Abstract Valiant [Val79, Val82] had proposed an analogue of the theory of NP-completeness in an entirely algebraic framework to study the complexity of polynomial families. Artihmetic circuits form the most standard model for studying the complexity of polynomial computations. In a note [Val92], Valiant argued that in order to prove lower bounds for boolean circuits, obtaining lower bounds for arithmetic circuits should be a rst step.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Complexity Theory
    Advanced Complexity Theory Markus Bl¨aser& Bodo Manthey Universit¨atdes Saarlandes Draft|February 9, 2011 and forever 2 1 Complexity of optimization prob- lems 1.1 Optimization problems The study of the complexity of solving optimization problems is an impor- tant practical aspect of complexity theory. A good textbook on this topic is the one by Ausiello et al. [ACG+99]. The book by Vazirani [Vaz01] is also recommend, but its focus is on the algorithmic side. Definition 1.1. An optimization problem P is a 4-tuple (IP ; SP ; mP ; goalP ) where ∗ 1. IP ⊆ f0; 1g is the set of valid instances of P , 2. SP is a function that assigns to each valid instance x the set of feasible ∗ 1 solutions SP (x) of x, which is a subset of f0; 1g . + 3. mP : f(x; y) j x 2 IP and y 2 SP (x)g ! N is the objective function or measure function. mP (x; y) is the objective value of the feasible solution y (with respect to x). 4. goalP 2 fmin; maxg specifies the type of the optimization problem. Either it is a minimization or a maximization problem. When the context is clear, we will drop the subscript P . Formally, an optimization problem is defined over the alphabet f0; 1g. But as usual, when we talk about concrete problems, we want to talk about graphs, nodes, weights, etc. In this case, we tacitly assume that we can always find suitable encodings of the objects we talk about. ∗ Given an instance x of the optimization problem P , we denote by SP (x) the set of all optimal solutions, that is, the set of all y 2 SP (x) such that mP (x; y) = goalfmP (x; z) j z 2 SP (x)g: (Note that the set of optimal solutions could be empty, since the maximum need not exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 1: an Overview of Circuit Complexity 1 Welcome 2
    Topics in Circuit Complexity (CS354, Fall’11) Week 1: An Overview of Circuit Complexity Lecture Notes for 9/27 and 9/29 Ryan Williams 1 Welcome The area of circuit complexity has a long history, starting in the 1940’s. It is full of open problems and frontiers that seem insurmountable, yet the literature on circuit complexity is fairly large. There is much that we do know, although it is scattered across several textbooks and academic papers. I think now is a good time to look again at circuit complexity with fresh eyes, and try to see what can be done. 2 Preliminaries An n-bit Boolean function has domain f0; 1gn and co-domain f0; 1g. At a high level, the basic question asked in circuit complexity is: given a collection of “simple functions” and a target Boolean function f, how efficiently can f be computed (on all inputs) using the simple functions? Of course, efficiency can be measured in many ways. The most natural measure is that of the “size” of computation: how many copies of these simple functions are necessary to compute f? Let B be a set of Boolean functions, which we call a basis set. The fan-in of a function g 2 B is the number of inputs that g takes. (Typical choices are fan-in 2, or unbounded fan-in, meaning that g can take any number of inputs.) We define a circuit C with n inputs and size s over a basis B, as follows. C consists of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of s + n + 2 nodes, with n sources and one sink (the sth node in some fixed topological order on the nodes).
    [Show full text]
  • APX Radio Family Brochure
    APX MISSION-CRITICAL P25 COMMUNICATIONS BROCHURE APX P25 COMMUNICATIONS THE BEST OF WHAT WE DO Whether you’re a state trooper, firefighter, law enforcement officer or highway maintenance technician, people count on you to get the job done. There’s no room for error. This is mission critical. APX™ radios exist for this purpose. They’re designed to be reliable and to optimize your communications, specifically in extreme environments and during life-threatening situations. Even with the widest portfolio in the industry, APX continues to evolve. The latest APX NEXT smart radio series delivers revolutionary new capabilities to keep you safer and more effective. WE’VE PUT EVERYTHING WE’VE LEARNED OVER THE LAST 90 YEARS INTO APX. THAT’S WHY IT REPRESENTS THE VERY BEST OF THE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS PORTFOLIO. THERE IS NO BETTER. BROCHURE APX P25 COMMUNICATIONS OUTLAST AND OUTPERFORM RELIABLE COMMUNICATIONS ARE NON-NEGOTIABLE APX two-way radios are designed for extreme durability, so you can count on them to work under the toughest conditions. From the rugged aluminum endoskeleton of our portable radios to the steel encasement of our mobile radios, APX is built to last. Pressure-tested HEAR AND BE HEARD tempered glass display CLEAR COMMUNICATION CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE The APX family is designed to help you hear and be heard with unparalleled clarity, so you’re confident your message will always get through. Multiple microphones and adaptive windporting technology minimize noise from wind, crowds and sirens. And the loud and clear speaker ensures you can hear over background sounds. KEEP INFORMATION PROTECTED EVERYDAY, SECURITY IS BEING PUT TO THE TEST With the APX family, you can be sure that your calls stay private, secure, and confidential.
    [Show full text]
  • The Multiplicative Weights Update Method: a Meta Algorithm and Applications
    The Multiplicative Weights Update Method: a Meta Algorithm and Applications Sanjeev Arora∗ Elad Hazan Satyen Kale Abstract Algorithms in varied fields use the idea of maintaining a distribution over a certain set and use the multiplicative update rule to iteratively change these weights. Their analysis are usually very similar and rely on an exponential potential function. We present a simple meta algorithm that unifies these disparate algorithms and drives them as simple instantiations of the meta algo- rithm. 1 Introduction Algorithms in varied fields work as follows: a distribution is maintained on a certain set, and at each step the probability assigned to i is multi- plied or divided by (1 + C(i)) where C(i) is some kind of “payoff” for element i. (Rescaling may be needed to ensure that the new values form a distribution.) Some examples include: the Ada Boost algorithm in ma- chine learning [FS97]; algorithms for game playing studied in economics (see below), the Plotkin-Shmoys-Tardos algorithm for packing and covering LPs [PST91], and its improvements in the case of flow problems by Young, Garg-Konneman, and Fleischer [You95, GK98, Fle00]; Impagliazzo’s proof of the Yao XOR lemma [Imp95], etc. The analysis of the running time uses a potential function argument and the final running time is proportional to 1/2. It has been clear to most researchers that these results are very similar, see for instance, Khandekar’s PhD thesis [Kha04]. Here we point out that these are all instances of the same (more general) algorithm. This meta ∗This project supported by David and Lucile Packard Fellowship and NSF grant CCR- 0205594.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity Zoo
    The Complexity Zoo Scott Aaronson www.ScottAaronson.com LATEX Translation by Chris Bourke [email protected] 417 classes and counting 1 Contents 1 About This Document 3 2 Introductory Essay 4 2.1 Recommended Further Reading ......................... 4 2.2 Other Theory Compendia ............................ 5 2.3 Errors? ....................................... 5 3 Pronunciation Guide 6 4 Complexity Classes 10 5 Special Zoo Exhibit: Classes of Quantum States and Probability Distribu- tions 110 6 Acknowledgements 116 7 Bibliography 117 2 1 About This Document What is this? Well its a PDF version of the website www.ComplexityZoo.com typeset in LATEX using the complexity package. Well, what’s that? The original Complexity Zoo is a website created by Scott Aaronson which contains a (more or less) comprehensive list of Complexity Classes studied in the area of theoretical computer science known as Computa- tional Complexity. I took on the (mostly painless, thank god for regular expressions) task of translating the Zoo’s HTML code to LATEX for two reasons. First, as a regular Zoo patron, I thought, “what better way to honor such an endeavor than to spruce up the cages a bit and typeset them all in beautiful LATEX.” Second, I thought it would be a perfect project to develop complexity, a LATEX pack- age I’ve created that defines commands to typeset (almost) all of the complexity classes you’ll find here (along with some handy options that allow you to conveniently change the fonts with a single option parameters). To get the package, visit my own home page at http://www.cse.unl.edu/~cbourke/.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIONS of LINES in Fn 1. Introduction the Main Problem We
    UNIONS OF LINES IN F n RICHARD OBERLIN Abstract. We show that if a collection of lines in a vector space over a finite field has \dimension" at least 2(d−1)+β; then its union has \dimension" at least d + β: This is the sharp estimate of its type when no structural assumptions are placed on the collection of lines. We also consider some refinements and extensions of the main result, including estimates for unions of k-planes. 1. Introduction The main problem we will consider here is to give a lower bound for the dimension of the union of a collection of lines in terms of the dimension of the collection of lines, without imposing a structural hy- pothesis on the collection (in contrast to the Kakeya problem where one assumes that the lines are direction-separated, or perhaps satisfy the weaker \Wolff axiom"). Specifically, we are motivated by the following conjecture of D. Ober- lin (hdim denotes Hausdorff dimension). Conjecture 1.1. Suppose d ≥ 1 is an integer, that 0 ≤ β ≤ 1; and that L is a collection of lines in Rn with hdim(L) ≥ 2(d − 1) + β: Then [ (1) hdim( L) ≥ d + β: L2L The bound (1), if true, would be sharp, as one can see by taking L to be the set of lines contained in the d-planes belonging to a β- dimensional family of d-planes. (Furthermore, there is nothing to be gained by taking 1 < β ≤ 2 since the dimension of the set of lines contained in a d + 1-plane is 2(d − 1) + 2.) Standard Fourier-analytic methods show that (1) holds for d = 1, but the conjecture is open for d > 1: As a model problem, one may consider an analogous question where Rn is replaced by a vector space over a finite-field.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proofs
    Interactive proofs April 12, 2014 [72] L´aszl´oBabai. Trading group theory for randomness. In Proc. 17th STOC, pages 421{429. ACM Press, 1985. doi:10.1145/22145.22192. [89] L´aszl´oBabai and Shlomo Moran. Arthur-Merlin games: A randomized proof system and a hierarchy of complexity classes. J. Comput. System Sci., 36(2):254{276, 1988. doi:10.1016/0022-0000(88)90028-1. [99] L´aszl´oBabai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. Nondeterministic ex- ponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. In Proc. 31st FOCS, pages 16{25. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1990. doi:10.1109/FSCS.1990.89520. See item 1991.108. [108] L´aszl´oBabai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. Nondeterministic expo- nential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Comput. Complexity, 1 (1):3{40, 1991. doi:10.1007/BF01200056. Full version of 1990.99. [136] Sanjeev Arora, L´aszl´oBabai, Jacques Stern, and Z. (Elizabeth) Sweedyk. The hardness of approximate optima in lattices, codes, and systems of linear equations. In Proc. 34th FOCS, pages 724{733, Palo Alto CA, 1993. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1993.366815. Conference version of item 1997:160. [160] Sanjeev Arora, L´aszl´oBabai, Jacques Stern, and Z. (Elizabeth) Sweedyk. The hardness of approximate optima in lattices, codes, and systems of linear equations. J. Comput. System Sci., 54(2):317{331, 1997. doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1472. Full version of 1993.136. [111] L´aszl´oBabai, Lance Fortnow, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. BPP has subexponential time simulations unless EXPTIME has publishable proofs. In Proc.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Results of Jon Kleinberg a Talk for St.Petersburg Mathematical Society
    Four Results of Jon Kleinberg A Talk for St.Petersburg Mathematical Society Yury Lifshits Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St.Petersburg May 2007 1 / 43 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 / 43 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 2 / 43 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 2 / 43 5 Bursty Structure in Streams Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 2 / 43 Outline 1 Nevanlinna Prize for Jon Kleinberg History of Nevanlinna Prize Who is Jon Kleinberg 2 Hubs and Authorities 3 Nearest Neighbors: Faster Than Brute Force 4 Navigation in a Small World 5 Bursty Structure in Streams 2 / 43 Part I History of Nevanlinna Prize Career of Jon Kleinberg 3 / 43 Nevanlinna Prize The Rolf Nevanlinna Prize is awarded once every 4 years at the International Congress of Mathematicians, for outstanding contributions in Mathematical Aspects of Information Sciences including: 1 All mathematical aspects of computer science, including complexity theory, logic of programming languages, analysis of algorithms, cryptography, computer vision, pattern recognition, information processing and modelling of intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Prahladh Harsha
    Prahladh Harsha Toyota Technological Institute, Chicago phone : +1-773-834-2549 University Press Building fax : +1-773-834-9881 1427 East 60th Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60637 email : [email protected] http://ttic.uchicago.edu/∼prahladh Research Interests Computational Complexity, Probabilistically Checkable Proofs (PCPs), Information Theory, Prop- erty Testing, Proof Complexity, Communication Complexity. Education • Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Research Advisor : Professor Madhu Sudan PhD Thesis: Robust PCPs of Proximity and Shorter PCPs • Master of Science (SM) Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000 • Bachelor of Technology (BTech) Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, 1998 Work Experience • Toyota Technological Institute, Chicago September 2004 – Present Research Assistant Professor • Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa February 2007 – May 2007 Visiting Scientist • Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley January 2005 – September 2005 Postdoctoral Researcher Honours and Awards • Summer Research Fellow 1997, Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scientific Research, Ban- galore. • Rajiv Gandhi Science Talent Research Fellow 1997, Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scien- tific Research, Bangalore. • Award Winner in the Indian National Mathematical Olympiad (INMO) 1993, National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM). • National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM) Nurture Program award 1995-1998. The Nurture program 1995-1998, coordinated by Prof. Alladi Sitaram, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore involves various topics in higher mathematics. 1 • Ranked 7th in the All India Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for admission into the Indian Institutes of Technology (among the 100,000 candidates who appeared for the examination). • Papers invited to special issues – “Robust PCPs of Proximity, Shorter PCPs, and Applications to Coding” (with Eli Ben- Sasson, Oded Goldreich, Madhu Sudan, and Salil Vadhan).
    [Show full text]