skip to main content
article

Hardness of approximating the shortest vector problem in lattices

Published:01 September 2005Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Let p > 1 be any fixed real. We show that assuming NP ⊈ RP, there is no polynomial time algorithm that approximates the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) in ℓp norm within a constant factor. Under the stronger assumption NP ⊈ RTIME(2poly(log n)), we show that there is no polynomial-time algorithm with approximation ratio 2(log n)1/2−ϵ where n is the dimension of the lattice and ϵ > 0 is an arbitrarily small constant.We first give a new (randomized) reduction from Closest Vector Problem (CVP) to SVP that achieves some constant factor hardness. The reduction is based on BCH Codes. Its advantage is that the SVP instances produced by the reduction behave well under the augmented tensor product, a new variant of tensor product that we introduce. This enables us to boost the hardness factor to 2(log n)1/2-ϵ.

References

  1. Aharonov, D., and Regev, O. 2004. Lattice problems in np ∩ conp. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajtai, M. 1996. Generating hard instances of lattice problems. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 99--108. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajtai, M. 1998. The shortest vector problem in L2 is NP-hard for randomized reductions. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 10--19. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajtai, M., and Dwork, C. 1997. A public-key cryptosystem with worst-case/average-case equivalence. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 284--293. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ajtai, M., Kumar, R., and Sivakumar, D. 2001. A sieve algorithm for the shortest lattice vector problem. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 601--610. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alon, N., Spencer, J., and Erdos, P. 1991. The Probabilistic Method. Wiley-Interscience Series.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Arora, S., Babai, L., Stern, J., and Sweedyk, E. 1997. The hardness of approximate optima in lattices, codes and systems of linear equations. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 54, 317--331. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Banaszczyk, W. 1993. New bounds in some transference theorems in the geometry of numbers. Math. Ann. 296, 625--635.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cai, J. 2003. Applications of a new transference theorem to Ajtai's connection factor. Discr. Appli. Math. 126, 1, 9--31. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai, J., and Nerurkar, A. 1997. An improved worst-case to average-case connection for lattice problems. In Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cai, J., and Nerurkar, A. 1999. Approximating the SVP to within a factor (1 + 1/dimε) is NP-hard under randomized reductions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 59, 2, 221--239. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dinur, I. 2003. Approximating SVP∞ to within almost polynomial factors is NP-hard. Combinatorica 23, 2, 205--243. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinur, I., Kindler, G., and Safra, S. 1998. Approximating CVP to within almost-polynomial factors is NP-hard. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Dumer, I., Micciancio, D., and Sudan, M. 1999. Hardness of approximating the minimum distance of a linear code. In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gauss, C. 1801. Disquisitiones arithmetica (Leipzig, 1801: art. 171). Yale Univ. Press. (English translation by A. A. Clarke, 1966.)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldreich, O., and Goldwasser, S. 2000. On the limits of non-approximability of lattice problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 60, 3, 540--563. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldreich, O., Micciancio, D., Safra, S., and Seifert, J. 1999. Approximating shortest lattice vectors is not harder than approximating closest lattice vectors. Inf. Proc. Lett. 71, 2, 55--61. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hastad, J. 1988. Dual vectors and lower bounds for the nearest lattice point problem. Combinatorica 8, 75--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kannan, R. 1983. Improved algorithms for integer programming and related lattice problems. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 193--206. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kannan, R. 1987. Minkowski's convex body theorem and integer programming. Math. Oper. Res. 12, 415--440. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Khot, S. 2003. Hardness of approximating the shortest vector problem in high Lp norms. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar, R., and Sivakumar, D. 2001. Complexity of SVP---A reader's digest. Complexity Theory Column, L. Hemaspaandra, Ed. SIGACT News 32, 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lagarias, J., Lenstra, H., and Schnorr, C. 1990. Korkine--Zolotarev bases and successive minima of a lattice and its reciprocal lattice. Combinatorica 10, 333--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lagarias, J., and Odlyzko, A. 1985. Solving low-density subset sum problems. J. ACM 32, 1, 229--246. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Landau, S., and Miller, G. 1985. Solvability of radicals is in polynomial time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 30, 2, 179--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenstra, A., Lenstra, H., and Lovász, L. 1982. Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients. Math. Ann. 261, 513--534.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenstra, H. 1981. Integer programming with a fixed number of variables. Tech. Report 81-03. Univ. of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Micciancio, D. 2000. The shortest vector problem is NP-hard to approximate to within some constant. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 6, 2008--2035. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Micciancio, D., and Goldwasser, S. 2002. Complexity of Lattice Problems, A Cryptographic Perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Minkowski, H. 1910. Geometrie der zahlen. Tuebner.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Regev, O. 2003. New lattice based cryptographic constructions. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Schnorr, C. 1987. A hierarchy of polynomial-time basis reduction algorithms. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 53, 2-3, 201--224. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. van Emde Boas, P. 1981. Another NP-complete problem and the complexity of computing short vectors in a lattice. Tech. Report 81-04. Mathematische Instiut, Univ. of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Hardness of approximating the shortest vector problem in lattices

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader