Inapproximability of Finding Sparse Vectors in Codes, Subspaces, and Lattices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding sparse vectors is a fundamental problem that arises in several contexts including codes, subspaces, and lattices. In this work, we prove strong inapproximability results for all these variants using a novel approach that even bypasses the PCP theorem. Our main result is that it is NP-hard (under randomized reductions) to approximate the sparsest vector in a real subspace within any constant factor; the gap can be further amplified using tensoring. Our reduction has the property that there is a Boolean solution in the completeness case. As a corollary, this immediately recovers the state-of-the-art inapproximability factors for the shortest vector problem (SVP) on lattices. Our proof extends the range of $\mathbf{l}_{\_} \mathbf{p}$ (quasi) norms for which hardness was previously known, from ‘p at least one’ to ‘p at least zero’, answering a question raised by (Khot, JACM 2005).Previous hardness results for SVP, and the related minimum distance problem (MDP) for error-correcting codes, all use lattice/coding gadgets that have an abundance of codewords in a ball of radius smaller than the minimum distance. In contrast, our reduction only needs many codewords in a ball of radius slightly larger than the minimum distance. This enables an easy derandomization of our reduction for finite fields, giving a new elementary proof of deterministic hardness for MDP. We believe this weaker density requirement might offer a promising approach to showing deterministic hardness of SVP, a long elusive goal. The key technical ingredient underlying our result for real subspaces is a proof that in the kernel of a random Rademacher matrix, the support of any two linearly independent vectors have very little overlap.A broader motivation behind this work is the development of inapproximability techniques for problems over the reals. Analytic variants of sparsest vector have connections to small set expansion, quantum separability and polynomial maximization over convex sets, all of which appear to be out of reach of current PCP techniques. We hope that the approach we develop could enable progress on some of these problems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".