NP-hardness of testing equivalence to sparse polynomials and to constant-support polynomials
Omkar Baraskar, Agrim Dewan, Chandan Saha, Pulkit Sinha

TL;DR
This paper proves that testing polynomial equivalence to sparse and constant-support polynomials is NP-hard, highlighting computational difficulty in polynomial identity and circuit size problems even in restricted cases.
Contribution
It establishes NP-hardness of equivalence testing for sparse and support-bounded polynomials, answering open questions and connecting to circuit complexity.
Findings
NP-hardness of ETsparse over any field for sparse input
NP-hardness of approximating minimal orbit-sparsity within factor s^{1/3 - ε}
NP-hardness of orbit testing for support-σ polynomials for σ ≥ 5
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-…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning and Algorithms · Software Testing and Debugging Techniques · Advanced Database Systems and Queries
