arXiv subjects

Surendra Ghentiyala

Publications and source records attributed to Surendra Ghentiyala.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Hierarchies within TFNP: building blocks and collapses

In all well-studied $\mathsf{TFNP}$ subclasses (e.g. $\mathsf{PPP}$ etc.), the canonical complete problem takes as input a polynomial-size circuit $C$ whose input-output behavior implicitly encodes an exponentially large object $G$, i.e. $C$ is the succinct (polynomial-size) representation of the exponential size object $G$. The goal is to find some particular substructure in $G$ which can be confirmed in polynomial time using queries to $C$. While such formulations have proven fruitful in the $\mathsf{TFNP}$ literature, they are arguably insufficient to characterize much of $\mathsf{TFNP}$. For example, for any object $G$ whose succinct description requires one to factor integers, it seems we cannot represent it by a circuit $C$ under the widely believed assumption that $\mathrm{Factor} \notin \mathsf{FP}$. To address this, we initiate the study of classes of the form $\mathsf{A}^{\mathsf{B}}$ where both $\mathsf{A}$ and $\mathsf{B}$ are $\mathsf{TFNP}$ subclasses. In particular, we define complete problems for these classes that take as input a circuit $C$ which is allowed oracle gates to another $\mathsf{TFNP}$ class. The exact definitions require some care since the oracle is for a search problem with many possible solutions. To address this, we introduce a strict condition called \emph{Internal Consistency} that underlies the definition. Informally, this condition enforces that, from the perspective of a bounded verifier, the oracle behaves like a function. Beyond introducing definitions for $\mathsf{TFNP}$ oracle problems, our specific technical contributions include showing that several $\mathsf{TFNP}$ subclasses are self-low and hence their corresponding hierarchies collapse. In particular, $\mathsf{PPA^{PPA}} = \mathsf{PPA}$, $\mathsf{PLS^{PLS}} = \mathsf{PLS}$, and $\mathsf{LOSSY^{LOSSY}} = \mathsf{LOSSY}$.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2026

Overcoming the Randomness-Utility Trade-off in Answering Differentially Private Linear Queries

We study the question of answering linear queries with differential privacy using few (expected) random bits. We provide a randomness-efficient analog of the $\| \cdot \|_K$-norm mechanism of Hardt and Talwar [HT10]. For the $\ell_\infty$-error, our algorithm can answer $d$ linear queries with $O(d / \varepsilon)$ error using $O(\log d)$ random bits, improving upon algorithms of Canonne et al. and Ghentiyala [CSV25, Ghe26]; this is optimal when $\varepsilon \le 1/d$. We also provide a computationally efficient version of our algorithm, albeit with an $O(\log d)$ multiplicative increase in the error.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Efficient derandomization of differentially private counting queries

Differential privacy for the 2020 census required an estimated 90 terabytes of randomness [GL20], an amount which may be prohibitively expensive or entirely infeasible to generate. Motivated by these practical concerns, [CSV25] initiated the study of the randomness complexity of differential privacy, and in particular, the randomness complexity of $d$ counting queries. This is the task of outputting the number of entries in a dataset that satisfy predicates $\mathcal{P}_1, \dots, \mathcal{P}_d$ respectively. They showed the rather surprising fact that though any reasonably accurate, $\varepsilon$-differentially private mechanism for one counting query requires $1-O(\varepsilon)$ bits of randomness in expectation, there exists a fairly accurate mechanism for $d$ counting queries which requires only $O(\log d)$ bits of randomness in expectation. The mechanism of [CSV25] is inefficient (not polynomial time) and relies on a combinatorial object known as rounding schemes. Here, we give a polynomial time mechanism which achieves nearly the same randomness complexity versus accuracy tradeoff as that of [CSV25]. Our construction is based on the following simple observation: after a randomized shift of the answer to each counting query, the answer to many counting queries remains the same regardless of whether we add noise to that coordinate or not. This allows us to forgo the step of adding noise to the result of many counting queries. Our mechanism does not make use of rounding schemes. Therefore, it provides a different -- and, in our opinion, clearer -- insight into the origins of the randomness savings that can be obtained by batching $d$ counting queries.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

The Structure of In-Place Space-Bounded Computation

In the standard model of computing multi-output functions in logspace ($\mathsf{FL}$), we are given a read-only tape holding $x$ and a logarithmic length worktape, and must print $f(x)$ to a dedicated write-only tape. However, there has been extensive work (both in theory and in practice) on algorithms that transform $x$ into $f(x)$ in-place on a single read-write tape with limited (in our case $O(\log n)$) additional workspace. We say $f\in \mathsf{inplaceFL}$ if $f$ can be computed in this model. We initiate the study of in-place computation from a structural complexity perspective, proving upper and lower bounds on the power of $\mathsf{inplaceFL}$. We show the following: i) Unconditionally, $\mathsf{FL}\not\subseteq \mathsf{inplaceFL}$. ii) The problems of integer multiplication and evaluating $\mathsf{NC}^0_4$ circuits lie outside $\mathsf{inplaceFL}$ under cryptographic assumptions. However, evaluating $\mathsf{NC}^0_2$ circuits can be done in $\mathsf{inplaceFL}$. iii) We have $\mathsf{FL} \subseteq \mathsf{inplaceFL}^{\mathsf{STP}}.$ Consequently, proving $\mathsf{inplaceFL} \not\subseteq \mathsf{FL}$ would imply $\mathsf{SAT} \not\in \mathsf{L}$. We also consider the analogous catalytic class ($\mathsf{inplaceFCL}$), where the in-place algorithm has a large additional worktape tape that it must reset at the end of the computation. We give $\mathsf{inplaceFCL}$ algorithms for matrix multiplication and inversion over polynomial-sized finite fields. We furthermore use our results and techniques to show two novel barriers to proving $\mathsf{CL} \subseteq \mathsf{P}$. First, we show that any proof of $\mathsf{CL}\subseteq \mathsf{P}$ must be non-relativizing, by giving an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{CL}^O=\mathsf{EXP}^O$. Second, we identify a search problem in $\mathsf{searchCL}$ but not known to be in $\mathsf{P}$.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2025

Downward self-reducibility in the total function polynomial hierarchy

A problem $\mathcal{P}$ is considered downward self-reducible, if there exists an efficient algorithm for $\mathcal{P}$ that is allowed to make queries to only strictly smaller instances of $\mathcal{P}$. Downward self-reducibility has been well studied in the case of decision problems, and it is well known that any downward self-reducible problem must lie in $\mathsf{PSPACE}$. Harsha, Mitropolsky and Rosen [ITCS, 2023] initiated the study of downward self reductions in the case of search problems. They showed the following interesting collapse: if a problem is in $\mathsf{TFNP}$ and also downward self-reducible, then it must be in $\mathsf{PLS}$. Moreover, if the problem admits a unique solution then it must be in $\mathsf{UEOPL}$. We demonstrate that this represents just the tip of a much more general phenomenon, which holds for even harder search problems that lie higher up in the total function polynomial hierarchy ($\mathsf{TFΣ_i^P}$). In fact, even if we allow our downward self-reduction to be much more powerful, such a collapse will still occur. We show that any problem in $\mathsf{TFΣ_i^P}$ which admits a randomized downward self-reduction with access to a $\mathsf{Σ_{i-1}^P}$ oracle must be in $\mathsf{PLS}^{\mathsf{Σ_{i-1}^P}}$. If the problem has \textit{essentially unique solutions} then it lies in $\mathsf{UEOPL}^{\mathsf{Σ_{i-1}^P}}$. As one (out of many) application of our framework, we get new upper bounds for the problems $\mathrm{Range Avoidance}$ and $\mathrm{Linear Ordering Principle}$ and show that they are both in $\mathsf{UEOPL}^{\mathsf{NP}}$.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2025

New constructions of pseudorandom codes

Introduced in [CG24], pseudorandom error-correcting codes (PRCs) are a new cryptographic primitive with applications in watermarking generative AI models. These are codes where a collection of polynomially many codewords is computationally indistinguishable from random for an adversary that does not have the secret key, but anyone with the secret key is able to efficiently decode corrupted codewords. In this work, we examine the assumptions under which PRCs with robustness to a constant error rate exist. 1. We show that if both the planted hyperloop assumption introduced in [BKR23] and security of a version of Goldreich's PRG hold, then there exist public-key PRCs for which no efficient adversary can distinguish a polynomial number of codewords from random with better than $o(1)$ advantage. 2. We revisit the construction of [CG24] and show that it can be based on a wider range of assumptions than presented in [CG24]. To do this, we introduce a weakened version of the planted XOR assumption which we call the weak planted XOR assumption and which may be of independent interest. 3. We initiate the study of PRCs which are secure against space-bounded adversaries. We show how to construct secret-key PRCs of length $O(n)$ which are $\textit{unconditionally}$ indistinguishable from random by $\text{poly}(n)$ time, $O(n^{1.5-\varepsilon})$ space adversaries.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

More basis reduction for linear codes: backward reduction, BKZ, slide reduction, and more

We expand on recent exciting work of Debris-Alazard, Ducas, and van Woerden [Transactions on Information Theory, 2022], which introduced the notion of basis reduction for codes, in analogy with the extremely successful paradigm of basis reduction for lattices. We generalize DDvW's LLL algorithm and size-reduction algorithm from codes over $\mathbb{F}_2$ to codes over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and we further develop the theory of proper bases. We then show how to instantiate for codes the BKZ and slide-reduction algorithms, which are the two most important generalizations of the LLL algorithm for lattices. Perhaps most importantly, we show a new and very efficient basis-reduction algorithm for codes, called full backward reduction. This algorithm is quite specific to codes and seems to have no analogue in the lattice setting. We prove that this algorithm finds vectors as short as LLL does in the worst case (i.e., within the Griesmer bound) and does so in less time. We also provide both heuristic and empirical evidence that it outperforms LLL in practice, and we give a variant of the algorithm that provably outperforms LLL (in some sense) for random codes. Finally, we explore the promise and limitations of basis reduction for codes. In particular, we show upper and lower bounds on how ``good'' of a basis a code can have, and we show two additional illustrative algorithms that demonstrate some of the promise and the limitations of basis reduction for codes.

cs.DS↗