Cited By
View all- Chatterjee KGoharshady ENovotný PŽikelić Đ(2024)Equivalence and Similarity Refutation for Probabilistic ProgramsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564628:PLDI(2098-2122)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
Universal Equivalence and Majority of Probabilistic Programs over Finite Fields
Article No.: 5, Pages 1 - 42
Abstract
We study decidability problems for equivalence of probabilistic programs for a core probabilistic programming language over finite fields of fixed characteristic. The programming language supports uniform sampling, addition, multiplication, and conditionals and thus is sufficiently expressive to encode Boolean and arithmetic circuits. We consider two variants of equivalence: The first one considers an interpretation over the finite field Fq, while the second one, which we call universal equivalence, verifies equivalence over all extensions Fqk of Fq. The universal variant typically arises in provable cryptography when one wishes to prove equivalence for any length of bitstrings, i.e., elements of F2k for any k. While the first problem is obviously decidable, we establish its exact complexity, which lies in the counting hierarchy. To show decidability and a doubly exponential upper bound of the universal variant, we rely on results from algorithmic number theory and the possibility to compare local zeta functions associated to given polynomials. We then devise a general way to draw links between the universal probabilistic problems and widely studied problems on linear recurrence sequences. Finally, we study several variants of the equivalence problem, including a problem we call majority, motivated by differential privacy. We also define and provide some insights about program indistinguishability, proving that it is decidable for programs always returning 0 or 1.
References
[1]
Shaull Almagor, Brynmor Chapman, Mehran Hosseini, Joël Ouaknine, and James Worrell. 2018. Effective divergence analysis for linear recurrence sequences. In 29th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’18)(Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 118), Sven Schewe and Lijun Zhang (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 42:1–42:15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2018.42
[2]
James Ax. 1968. The elementary theory of finite fields. Ann. Math. 88, 2 (1968), 239–271.
[3]
Gilles Barthe, Rohit Chadha, Vishal Jagannath, A. Prasad Sistla, and Mahesh Viswanathan. 2020. Deciding differential privacy for programs with finite inputs and outputs. In 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. 141–154.
[4]
Gilles Barthe, Marion Daubignard, Bruce Kapron, Yassine Lakhnech, and Vincent Laporte. 2010. On the equality of probabilistic terms. In 16th International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR’10)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6355). Springer, 46–63.
[5]
Gilles Barthe, Benjamin Grégoire, Charlie Jacomme, Steve Kremer, and Pierre-Yves Strub. 2019. Symbolic methods in computational cryptography proofs. In 32nd IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF’19). IEEE Computer Society, 136–151.
[6]
Gilles Barthe, Benjamin Grégoire, and Santiago Zanella Béguelin. 2009. Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 44, 1 (2009), 90–101.
[7]
Gilles Barthe, Charlie Jacomme, and Steve Kremer. 2020. Universal equivalence and majority on probabilistic programs over finite fields. In 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’20), Naoki Kobayashi (Ed.). ACM, Saarbrücken.
[8]
Benjamin Bichsel, Timon Gehr, and Martin Vechev. 2018. Fine-grained semantics for probabilistic programs. In 27th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP’18)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10801). Springer, 145–185.
[9]
Enrico Bombieri. 1978. On exponential sums in finite fields, II. Inventiones Mathematicae 47, 1 (1978), 29–39.
[10]
Mark Braverman. 2006. Termination of integer linear programs. In International Conference on Computer-aided Verification. Springer, 372–385.
[11]
Brent Carmer and Mike Rosulek. 2016. Linicrypt: A model for practical cryptography. In 36th Annual International Cryptology Conference (CRYPTO’16)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9816). Springer, 416–445.
[12]
Antoine Chambert-Loir. 2006. Compter (rapidement) le nombre de solutions d’équations dans les corps finis. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0611584.
[13]
Qi Cheng, J. Maurice Rojas, and Daqing Wan. 2020. Computing zeta functions of large polynomial systems over finite fields. arxiv:2007.13214 [math.NT].
[14]
Dmitry Chistikov, Andrzej S. Murawski, and David Purser. 2019. Asymmetric distances for approximate differential privacy. In 30th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’19). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
[15]
Benny Chor, Oded Goldreich, Johan Håstad, Joel Friedman, Steven Rudich, and Roman Smolensky. 1985. The bit extraction problem of t-resilient functions (preliminary version). In 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’85). IEEE Computer Society, 396–407.
[16]
Bernard Dwork. 1960. On the rationality of the zeta function of an algebraic variety. Amer. J. Math. 82, 3 (1960), 631–648.
[17]
Graham Everest, Alf van der Poorten, Igor Shparlinski, and Thomas Ward. 2002. Exponential functions, linear recurrence sequences, and their applications. (2002). https://www.ams.org/books/surv/104/.
[18]
Matthew Fredrikson and Somesh Jha. 2014. Satisfiability modulo counting: A new approach for analyzing privacy properties. In Joint Meeting of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL) and the 29th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). ACM, 1–10.
[19]
Marco Gaboardi, Kobbi Nissim, and David Purser. 2020. The complexity of verifying loop-free programs as differentially private. In 47th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’20)(Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 168), Artur Czumaj, Anuj Dawar, and Emanuela Merelli (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 129:1–129:17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2020.129
[20]
Oded Goldreich. 2005. Foundations of Cryptography: A Primer. Vol. 1. Now Publishers Inc.
[21]
William Andrew Johnson. 2016. Fun with Fields. Ph.D. Dissertation. UC Berkeley.
[22]
Charanjit S. Jutla and Arnab Roy. 2012. Decision procedures for simulatability. In 17th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS’12)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7459). Springer, 573–590.
[23]
Catarina Kiefe. 1976. Sets definable over finite fields: Their zeta-functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 223 (1976), 45–59.
[24]
Alan G. B. Lauder and Daqing Wan. 2008. Counting points on varieties over finite fields of small characteristic. In Algorithmic Number Theory: Lattices, Number Fields, Curves and Cryptography. Cambridge University Press, 579–612.
[25]
Axel Legay, Andrzej S. Murawski, Joël Ouaknine, and James Worrell. 2008. On automated verification of probabilistic programs. In 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS’08)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4963). Springer, 173–187.
[26]
Rudolf Lidl and Harald Niederreiter. 1983. Finite Fields. Addison-Wesley.
[27]
Yehuda Lindell. 2017. How to simulate it—A tutorial on the simulation proof technique. In Tutorials on the Foundations of Cryptography, Yehuda Lindell (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, 277–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57048-8_6
[28]
Michael L. Littman, Judy Goldsmith, and Martin Mundhenk. 1998. The computational complexity of probabilistic planning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 9 (1998), 1–36.
[29]
Stefan Maubach. 2001. Polynomial automorphisms over finite fields. Serdica Math. J. 27 (2001), 343–350.
[30]
Scott McCallum and Volker Weispfenning. 2012. Deciding polynomial-transcendental problems. J. Symbol. Comput. 47, 1 (2012), 16–31.
[31]
Maurice Mignotte, Tarlok Nath Shorey, and Robert Tijdeman. 1984. The distance between terms of an algebraic recurrence sequence. J. Für Die Reine Und Angewandte Mathematik349 (1984), 63–76.
[32]
Gary L. Mullen and Daniel Panario. 2013. Handbook of Finite Fields. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[33]
Andrzej S. Murawski and Joël Ouaknine. 2005. On probabilistic program equivalence and refinement. In 16th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR’05)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3653), Martín Abadi and Luca de Alfaro (Eds.) Springer, 156–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11539452_15
[34]
Tobias Nipkow. 1990. Unification in primal algebras, their powers and their varieties. J. ACM 37, 4 (Oct. 1990), 742–776.
[35]
Joël Ouaknine and James Worrell. 2012. Decision problems for linear recurrence sequences. In 6th International Workshop on Reachability Problems (RP’12)(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7550). Springer, 21–28.
[36]
Joël Ouaknine and James Worrell. 2014. Positivity problems for low-order linear recurrence sequences. In 25th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’14). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 366–379.
[37]
Joël Ouaknine and James Worrell. 2014. Ultimate positivity is decidable for simple linear recurrence sequences. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Springer, 330–341.
[38]
Adi Shamir. 1979. How to share a secret. Commun. ACM 22, 11 (Nov. 1979), 612–613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/359168.359176
[39]
Jacobo Toràn. 1988. An oracle characterization of the counting hierarchy. In 3rd Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. 213–223.
[40]
Jacobo Torán. 1991. Complexity classes defined by counting quantifiers. J. ACM 38 (1991), 753–774.
[41]
N. K. Vereshchagin. 1985. The problem of appearance of a zero in a linear recurrence sequence. Mat. Zametki 38, 2 (1985), 609–615.
[42]
André Weil. 1949. Numbers of solutions of equations in finite fields. Bull. AMS (1949).https://www.projecteuclid.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-mathematical-society-new-series/volume-55/issue-5/Numbers-of-solutions-of-equations-in-finite-fields/bams/1183513798.full
Index Terms
- Universal Equivalence and Majority of Probabilistic Programs over Finite Fields
Recommendations
Universal equivalence and majority of probabilistic programs over finite fields
LICS '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer ScienceWe study decidability problems for equivalence of probabilistic programs, for a core probabilistic programming language over finite fields of fixed characteristic. The programming language supports uniform sampling, addition, multiplication and ...
Well-structured program equivalence is highly undecidable
We show that strict deterministic propositional dynamic logic with intersection is highly undecidable, solving a problem in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In fact we show something quite a bit stronger. We introduce the construction of program ...
Converting finite width AFAs to nondeterministic and universal finite automata
AbstractThe maximal existential (respectively, universal) width of an alternating finite automaton (AFA) on a string w is the maximal number of existential choices encountered in one branch (respectively, the maximal number of universal parallel branches)...
Highlights- We consider alternating finite automata (AFA) making a limited number of existential or universal choices in a computation.
- We provide upper and lower bounds for converting an AFA with limited universal width to a nondeterministic ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
January 2022
237 pages
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 the author(s) 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: 22 November 2021
Accepted: 01 August 2021
Revised: 01 August 2021
Received: 01 December 2020
Published in�TOCL�Volume 23, Issue 1
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Refereed
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 156Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)29
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 22 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Chatterjee KGoharshady ENovotný PŽikelić Đ(2024)Equivalence and Similarity Refutation for Probabilistic ProgramsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/36564628:PLDI(2098-2122)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format