Witness Encryption and NP-Hardness of Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study connections between two fundamental questions from computer science theory. (1) Is witness encryption possible for NP [Sanjam Garg et al., 2013]? That is, given an instance x of an NP-complete language L, can one encrypt a secret message with security contingent on the ability to provide a witness for x ∈ L? (2) Is computational learning (in the sense of [Leslie G. Valiant, 1984; Michael J. Kearns et al., 1994]) hard for NP? That is, is there a polynomial-time reduction from instances of L to instances of learning? Our main contribution is that certain formulations of NP-hardness of learning characterize the existence of witness encryption for NP. More specifically, we show: - witness encryption for a language L ∈ NP is equivalent to a half-Levin reduction from L to the Computational Gap Learning problem (denoted CGL [Benny Applebaum et al., 2008]), where a half-Levin reduction is the same as a Levin reduction but only required to preserve witnesses in one direction, and CGL formalizes agnostic learning as a decision problem. We show versions of the statement above for witness encryption secure against non-uniform and uniform adversaries. We also show that witness encryption for NP with ciphertexts of logarithmic length, along with a circuit lower bound for E, are together equivalent to NP-hardness of a generalized promise version of MCSP. We complement the above with a number of unconditional NP-hardness results for agnostic PAC learning. Extending a result of [Shuichi Hirahara, 2022] to the standard setting of boolean circuits, we show NP-hardness of "semi-proper" learning. Namely: - for some polynomial s, it is NP-hard to agnostically learn circuits of size s(n) by circuits of size s(n)⋅ n^{1/(log log n)^O(1)}. Looking beyond the computational model of standard boolean circuits enables us to prove NP-hardness of improper learning (ie. without a restriction on the size of hypothesis returned by the learner). We obtain such results for: - learning circuits with oracle access to a given randomly sampled string, and - learning RAM programs. In particular, we show that a variant of MINLT [Ker-I Ko, 1991] for RAM programs is NP-hard with parameters corresponding to the setting of improper learning. We view these results as partial progress toward the ultimate goal of showing NP-hardness of learning boolean circuits in an improper setting. Lastly, we give some consequences of NP-hardness of learning for private- and public-key cryptography. Improving a main result of [Benny Applebaum et al., 2008], we show that if improper agnostic PAC learning is NP-hard under a randomized non-adaptive reduction (with some restrictions), then NP ⊈ BPP implies the existence of i.o. one-way functions. In contrast, if CGL is NP-hard under a half-Levin reduction, then NP ⊈ BPP implies the existence of i.o. public-key encryption.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".