5 research outputs found

    A Quadratic Lower Bound for Homogeneous Algebraic Branching Programs

    Get PDF
    An algebraic branching program (ABP) is a directed acyclic graph, with a start vertex s, and end vertex t and each edge having a weight which is an affine form in variables x_1, x_2, ..., x_n over an underlying field. An ABP computes a polynomial in a natural way, as the sum of weights of all paths from s to t, where the weight of a path is the product of the weights of the edges in the path. An ABP is said to be homogeneous if the polynomial computed at every vertex is homogeneous. In this paper, we show that any homogeneous algebraic branching program which computes the polynomial x_1^n + x_2^n + ... + x_n^n has at least Omega(n^2) vertices (and edges). To the best of our knowledge, this seems to be the first non-trivial super-linear lower bound on the number of vertices for a general homogeneous ABP and slightly improves the known lower bound of Omega(n log n) on the number of edges in a general (possibly non-homogeneous) ABP, which follows from the classical results of Strassen (1973) and Baur--Strassen (1983). On the way, we also get an alternate and unified proof of an Omega(n log n) lower bound on the size of a homogeneous arithmetic circuit (follows from [Strassen, 1973] and [Baur-Strassen, 1983]), and an n/2 lower bound (n over reals) on the determinantal complexity of an explicit polynomial [Mignon-Ressayre, 2004], [Cai, Chen, Li, 2010], [Yabe, 2015]. These are currently the best lower bounds known for these problems for any explicit polynomial, and were originally proved nearly two decades apart using seemingly different proof techniques

    Degree-Restricted Strength Decompositions and Algebraic Branching Programs

    Get PDF
    We analyze Kumar's recent quadratic algebraic branching program size lower bound proof method (CCC 2017) for the power sum polynomial. We present a refinement of this method that gives better bounds in some cases. The lower bound relies on Noether-Lefschetz type conditions on the hypersurface defined by the homogeneous polynomial. In the explicit example that we provide, the lower bound is proved resorting to classical intersection theory. Furthermore, we use similar methods to improve the known lower bound methods for slice rank of polynomials. We consider a sequence of polynomials that have been studied before by Shioda and show that for these polynomials the improved lower bound matches the known upper bound.Comment: 14 page

    Lower Bounds for Multilinear Order-Restricted ABPs

    Get PDF
    Proving super-polynomial lower bounds on the size of syntactic multilinear Algebraic Branching Programs (smABPs) computing an explicit polynomial is a challenging problem in Algebraic Complexity Theory. The order in which variables in {x_1,...,x_n} appear along any source to sink path in an smABP can be viewed as a permutation in S_n. In this article, we consider the following special classes of smABPs where the order of occurrence of variables along a source to sink path is restricted: 1) Strict circular-interval ABPs: For every sub-program the index set of variables occurring in it is contained in some circular interval of {1,..., n}. 2) L-ordered ABPs: There is a set of L permutations (orders) of variables such that every source to sink path in the smABP reads variables in one of these L orders, where L 0. We prove exponential (i.e., 2^{Omega(n^delta)}, delta>0) lower bounds on the size of above models computing an explicit multilinear 2n-variate polynomial in VP. As a main ingredient in our lower bounds, we show that any polynomial that can be computed by an smABP of size S, can be written as a sum of O(S) many multilinear polynomials where each summand is a product of two polynomials in at most 2n/3 variables, computable by smABPs. As a corollary, we show that any size S syntactic multilinear ABP can be transformed into a size S^{O(sqrt{n})} depth four syntactic multilinear Sigma Pi Sigma Pi circuit where the bottom Sigma gates compute polynomials on at most O(sqrt{n}) variables. Finally, we compare the above models with other standard models for computing multilinear polynomials
    corecore