This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
We show improved fine-grained hardness of two key lattice problems in the 𝓁_p norm: Bounded Distance Decoding to within an α factor of the minimum distance (BDDp, α) and the (decisional) γ-approximate Shortest Vector Problem (GapSVPp,γ), assuming variants of the Gap (Strong) Exponential Time Hypothesis (Gap-(S)ETH). Specifically, we show: 1) For all p ∈ [1, ∞), there is no 2ᵒ⁽ⁿ⁾-time algorithm for BDDp, α for any constant α > α_kn, where α_kn = 2-c_kn < 0.98491 and c_kn is the 𝓁₂ kissing-number constant, unless non-uniform Gap-ETH is false. 2) For all p ∈ [1, ∞), there is no 2ᵒ⁽ⁿ⁾-time algorithm for BDDp, α for any constant α > α^‡_p, where α^‡_p is explicit and satisfies α^‡_p = 1 for 1 ≤ p ≤ 2, α^‡_p < 1 for all p > 2, and α^‡_p → 1/2 as p → ∞, unless randomized Gap-ETH is false. 3) For all p ∈ [1, ∞) ⧵ 2 ℤ and all C > 1, there is no 2n/C-time algorithm for BDDp, α for any constant α > α^†p, C, where α^†p, C is explicit and satisfies α^†p, C → 1 as C → ∞ for any fixed p ∈ [1, ∞), unless non-uniform Gap-SETH is false. 4) For all p > p₀ ≈ 2.1397, p ∉ 2ℤ, and all C > C_p, there is no 2n/C-time algorithm for GapSVPp, γ for some constant γ > 1, where C_p > 1 is explicit and satisfies C_p → 1 as p → ∞, unless randomized Gap-SETH is false. Our results for BDDp, α improve and extend work by Aggarwal and Stephens-Davidowitz (STOC, 2018) and Bennett and Peikert (CCC, 2020). Specifically, the quantities α_kn and α^‡_p (respectively, α^†p,C) significantly improve upon the corresponding quantity α_p^* (respectively, αp,C^*) of Bennett and Peikert for small p (but arise from somewhat stronger assumptions). In particular, Item 1 improves the smallest value of α for which BDDp, α is known to be exponentially hard in the Euclidean norm (p = 2) to an explicit constant α < 1 for the first time under a general-purpose complexity assumption. Items 1 and 3 crucially use the recent breakthrough result of Vlăduţ (Moscow Journal of Combinatorics and Number Theory, 2019), which showed an explicit exponential lower bound on the lattice kissing number. Finally, Item 4 answers a natural question left open by Aggarwal, Bennett, Golovnev, and Stephens-Davidowitz (SODA, 2021), which showed an analogous result for the Closest Vector Problem.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bennett et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: