New Insights on the (Non-)Hardness of Circuit Minimization and Related Problems

The Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) and a related problem (MKTP) that deals with time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity are prominent candidates for NP-intermediate status. We show that, under very modest cryptographic assumptions (such as the existence of one-way functions), the problem of approximating the minimum circuit size (or time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity) within a factor of n^{1 - o(1)} is indeed NP-intermediate. To the best of our knowledge, these problems are the first natural NP-intermediate problems under the existence of an arbitrary one-way function. We also prove that MKTP is hard for the complexity class DET under non-uniform NC^0 reductions. This is surprising, since prior work on MCSP and MKTP had highlighted weaknesses of "local" reductions such as NC^0 reductions. We exploit this local reduction to obtain several new consequences: * MKTP is not in AC^0[p]. * Circuit size lower bounds are equivalent to hardness of a relativized version MKTP^A of MKTP under a class of uniform AC^0 reductions, for a large class of sets A. * Hardness of MCSP^A implies hardness of MKTP^A for a wide class of sets A. This is the first result directly relating the complexity of MCSP^A and MKTP^A, for any A

Easiness Amplification and Uniform Circuit Lower Bounds

We present new consequences of the assumption that time-bounded algorithms can be "compressed" with non-uniform circuits. Our main contribution is an "easiness amplification" lemma for circuits. One instantiation of the lemma says: if n^{1+e}-time, tilde{O}(n)-space computations have n^{1+o(1)} size (non-uniform) circuits for some e > 0, then every problem solvable in polynomial time and tilde{O}(n) space has n^{1+o(1)} size (non-uniform) circuits as well. This amplification has several consequences: * An easy problem without small LOGSPACE-uniform circuits. For all e > 0, we give a natural decision problem, General Circuit n^e-Composition, that is solvable in about n^{1+e} time, but we prove that polynomial-time and logarithmic-space preprocessing cannot produce n^{1+o(1)}-size circuits for the problem. This shows that there are problems solvable in n^{1+e} time which are not in LOGSPACE-uniform n^{1+o(1)} size, the first result of its kind. We show that our lower bound is non-relativizing, by exhibiting an oracle relative to which the result is false. * Problems without low-depth LOGSPACE-uniform circuits. For all e > 0, 1 < d < 2, and e < d we give another natural circuit composition problem computable in tilde{O}(n^{1+e}) time, or in O((log n)^d) space (though not necessarily simultaneously) that we prove does not have SPACE[(log n)^e]-uniform circuits of tilde{O}(n) size and O((log n)^e) depth. We also show SAT does not have circuits of tilde{O}(n) size and log^{2-o(1)}(n) depth that can be constructed in log^{2-o(1)}(n) space. * A strong circuit complexity amplification. For every e > 0, we give a natural circuit composition problem and show that if it has tilde{O}(n)-size circuits (uniform or not), then every problem solvable in 2^{O(n)} time and 2^{O(sqrt{n log n})} space (simultaneously) has 2^{O(sqrt{n log n})}-size circuits (uniform or not). We also show the same consequence holds assuming SAT has tilde{O}(n)-size circuits. As a corollary, if n^{1.1} time computations (or O(n) nondeterministic time computations) have tilde{O}(n)-size circuits, then all problems in exponential time and subexponential space (such as quantified Boolean formulas) have significantly subexponential-size circuits. This is a new connection between the relative circuit complexities of easy and hard problems

Relations and Equivalences Between Circuit Lower Bounds and Karp-Lipton Theorems

A frontier open problem in circuit complexity is to prove P^{NP} is not in SIZE[n^k] for all k; this is a necessary intermediate step towards NP is not in P_{/poly}. Previously, for several classes containing P^{NP}, including NP^{NP}, ZPP^{NP}, and S_2 P, such lower bounds have been proved via Karp-Lipton-style Theorems: to prove C is not in SIZE[n^k] for all k, we show that C subset P_{/poly} implies a "collapse" D = C for some larger class D, where we already know D is not in SIZE[n^k] for all k. It seems obvious that one could take a different approach to prove circuit lower bounds for P^{NP} that does not require proving any Karp-Lipton-style theorems along the way. We show this intuition is wrong: (weak) Karp-Lipton-style theorems for P^{NP} are equivalent to fixed-polynomial size circuit lower bounds for P^{NP}. That is, P^{NP} is not in SIZE[n^k] for all k if and only if (NP subset P_{/poly} implies PH subset i.o.- P^{NP}_{/n}). Next, we present new consequences of the assumption NP subset P_{/poly}, towards proving similar results for NP circuit lower bounds. We show that under the assumption, fixed-polynomial circuit lower bounds for NP, nondeterministic polynomial-time derandomizations, and various fixed-polynomial time simulations of NP are all equivalent. Applying this equivalence, we show that circuit lower bounds for NP imply better Karp-Lipton collapses. That is, if NP is not in SIZE[n^k] for all k, then for all C in {Parity-P, PP, PSPACE, EXP}, C subset P_{/poly} implies C subset i.o.-NP_{/n^epsilon} for all epsilon > 0. Note that unconditionally, the collapses are only to MA and not NP. We also explore consequences of circuit lower bounds for a sparse language in NP. Among other results, we show if a polynomially-sparse NP language does not have n^{1+epsilon}-size circuits, then MA subset i.o.-NP_{/O(log n)}, MA subset i.o.-P^{NP[O(log n)]}, and NEXP is not in SIZE[2^{o(m)}]. Finally, we observe connections between these results and the "hardness magnification" phenomena described in recent works

Quantum learning algorithms imply circuit lower bounds

We establish the first general connection between the design of quantum algorithms and circuit lower bounds. Specifically, let $\mathfrak{C}$ be a class of polynomial-size concepts, and suppose that $\mathfrak{C}$ can be PAC-learned with membership queries under the uniform distribution with error $1/2 - \gamma$ by a time $T$ quantum algorithm. We prove that if $\gamma^2 \cdot T \ll 2^n/n$, then $\mathsf{BQE} \nsubseteq \mathfrak{C}$, where $\mathsf{BQE} = \mathsf{BQTIME}[2^{O(n)}]$ is an exponential-time analogue of $\mathsf{BQP}$. This result is optimal in both $\gamma$ and $T$, since it is not hard to learn any class $\mathfrak{C}$ of functions in (classical) time $T = 2^n$ (with no error), or in quantum time $T = \mathsf{poly}(n)$ with error at most $1/2 - \Omega(2^{-n/2})$ via Fourier sampling. In other words, even a marginal improvement on these generic learning algorithms would lead to major consequences in complexity theory. Our proof builds on several works in learning theory, pseudorandomness, and computational complexity, and crucially, on a connection between non-trivial classical learning algorithms and circuit lower bounds established by Oliveira and Santhanam (CCC 2017). Extending their approach to quantum learning algorithms turns out to create significant challenges. To achieve that, we show among other results how pseudorandom generators imply learning-to-lower-bound connections in a generic fashion, construct the first conditional pseudorandom generator secure against uniform quantum computations, and extend the local list-decoding algorithm of Impagliazzo, Jaiswal, Kabanets and Wigderson (SICOMP 2010) to quantum circuits via a delicate analysis. We believe that these contributions are of independent interest and might find other applications

Hardness magnification for natural problems

We show that for several natural problems of interest, complexity lower bounds that are barely non-trivial imply super-polynomial or even exponential lower bounds in strong computational models. We term this phenomenon "hardness magnification". Our examples of hardness magnification include: 1. Let MCSP be the decision problem whose YES instances are truth tables of functions with circuit complexity at most s(n). We show that if MCSP[2^√n] cannot be solved on average with zero error by formulas of linear (or even sub-linear) size, then NP does not have polynomial-size formulas. In contrast, Hirahara and Santhanam (2017) recently showed that MCSP[2^√n] cannot be solved in the worst case by formulas of nearly quadratic size. 2. If there is a c > 0 such that for each positive integer d there is an ε > 0 such that the problem of checking if an n-vertex graph in the adjacency matrix representation has a vertex cover of size (log n)^c cannot be solved by depth-d AC^0 circuits of size m^1+ε, where m = Θ(n^2), then NP does not have polynomial-size formulas. 3. Let (α, β)-MCSP[s] be the promise problem whose YES instances are truth tables of functions that are α-approximable by a circuit of size s(n), and whose NO instances are truth tables of functions that are not β-approximable by a circuit of size s(n). We show that for arbitrary 1/2 ≺ β ≺ α ≤ 1, if (α, β)-MCSP[2^√n] cannot be solved by randomized algorithms with random access to the input running in sublinear time, then NP is not contained in BPP. 4. If for each probabilistic quasi-linear time machine M using poly-logarithmic many random bits that is claimed to solve Satisfiability, there is a deterministic polynomial-time machine that on infinitely many input lengths n either identifies a satisfiable instance of bit-length n on which M does not accept with high probability or an unsatisfiable instance of bit-length n on which M does not reject with high probability, then NEXP is not contained in BPP. 5. Given functions s, c N → N where s ≻ c, let MKtP[c, s] be the promise problem whose YES instances are strings of Kt complexity at most c(N) and NO instances are strings of Kt complexity greater than s(N). We show that if there is a δ ≻ 0 such that for each ε ≻ 0, MKtP[N^ε, N^ε + 5 log(N)] requires Boolean circuits of size N^1+δ, then EXP is not contained in SIZE (poly). For each of the cases of magnification above, we observe that standard hardness assumptions imply much stronger lower bounds for these problems than we require for magnification. We further explore magnification as an avenue to proving strong lower bounds, and argue that magnification circumvents the "natural proofs" barrier of Razborov and Rudich (1997). Examining some standard proof techniques, we find that they fall just short of proving lower bounds via magnification. As one of our main open problems, we ask whether there are other meta-mathematical barriers to proving lower bounds that rule out approache

AND and/or OR: Uniform Polynomial-Size Circuits

We investigate the complexity of uniform OR circuits and AND circuits of polynomial-size and depth. As their name suggests, OR circuits have OR gates as their computation gates, as well as the usual input, output and constant (0/1) gates. As is the norm for Boolean circuits, our circuits have multiple sink gates, which implies that an OR circuit computes an OR function on some subset of its input variables. Determining that subset amounts to solving a number of reachability questions on a polynomial-size directed graph (which input gates are connected to the output gate?), taken from a very sparse set of graphs. However, it is not obvious whether or not this (restricted) reachability problem can be solved, by say, uniform AC^0 circuits (constant depth, polynomial-size, AND, OR, NOT gates). This is one reason why characterizing the power of these simple-looking circuits in terms of uniform classes turns out to be intriguing. Another is that the model itself seems particularly natural and worthy of study. Our goal is the systematic characterization of uniform polynomial-size OR circuits, and AND circuits, in terms of known uniform machine-based complexity classes. In particular, we consider the languages reducible to such uniform families of OR circuits, and AND circuits, under a variety of reduction types. We give upper and lower bounds on the computational power of these language classes. We find that these complexity classes are closely related to tallyNL, the set of unary languages within NL, and to sets reducible to tallyNL. Specifically, for a variety of types of reductions (many-one, conjunctive truth table, disjunctive truth table, truth table, Turing) we give characterizations of languages reducible to OR circuit classes in terms of languages reducible to tallyNL classes. Then, some of these OR classes are shown to coincide, and some are proven to be distinct. We give analogous results for AND circuits. Finally, for many of our OR circuit classes, and analogous AND circuit classes, we prove whether or not the two classes coincide, although we leave one such inclusion open.Comment: In Proceedings MCU 2013, arXiv:1309.104

Predictable arguments of knowledge

We initiate a formal investigation on the power of predictability for argument of knowledge systems for NP. Specifically, we consider private-coin argument systems where the answer of the prover can be predicted, given the private randomness of the verifier; we call such protocols Predictable Arguments of Knowledge (PAoK). Our study encompasses a full characterization of PAoK, showing that such arguments can be made extremely laconic, with the prover sending a single bit, and assumed to have only one round (i.e., two messages) of communication without loss of generality. We additionally explore PAoK satisfying additional properties (including zero-knowledge and the possibility of re-using the same challenge across multiple executions with the prover), present several constructions of PAoK relying on different cryptographic tools, and discuss applications to cryptography

Conspiracies between learning algorithms, circuit lower bounds, and pseudorandomness

We prove several results giving new and stronger connections between learning theory, circuit complexity and pseudorandomness. Let C be any typical class of Boolean circuits, and C[s(n)] denote n-variable C-circuits of size ≤ s(n). We show: Learning Speedups. If C[poly(n)] admits a randomized weak learning algorithm under the uniform distribution with membership queries that runs in time 2n/nω(1), then for every k ≥ 1 and ε > 0 the class C[n k ] can be learned to high accuracy in time O(2n ε ). There is ε > 0 such that C[2n ε ] can be learned in time 2n/nω(1) if and only if C[poly(n)] can be learned in time 2(log n) O(1) . Equivalences between Learning Models. We use learning speedups to obtain equivalences between various randomized learning and compression models, including sub-exponential time learning with membership queries, sub-exponential time learning with membership and equivalence queries, probabilistic function compression and probabilistic average-case function compression. A Dichotomy between Learnability and Pseudorandomness. In the non-uniform setting, there is non-trivial learning for C[poly(n)] if and only if there are no exponentially secure pseudorandom functions computable in C[poly(n)]. Lower Bounds from Nontrivial Learning. If for each k ≥ 1, (depth-d)-C[n k ] admits a randomized weak learning algorithm with membership queries under the uniform distribution that runs in time 2n/nω(1), then for each k ≥ 1, BPE * (depth-d)-C[n k ]. If for some ε > 0 there are P-natural proofs useful against C[2n ε ], then ZPEXP * C[poly(n)]. Karp-Lipton Theorems for Probabilistic Classes. If there is a k > 0 such that BPE ⊆ i.o.Circuit[n k ], then BPEXP ⊆ i.o.EXP/O(log n). If ZPEXP ⊆ i.o.Circuit[2n/3 ], then ZPEXP ⊆ i.o.ESUBEXP. Hardness Results for MCSP. All functions in non-uniform NC1 reduce to the Minimum Circuit Size Problem via truth-table reductions computable by TC0 circuits. In particular, if MCSP ∈ TC0 then NC1 = TC0

Conspiracies Between Learning Algorithms, Circuit Lower Bounds, and Pseudorandomness

We prove several results giving new and stronger connections between learning theory, circuit complexity and pseudorandomness. Let C be any typical class of Boolean circuits, and C[s(n)] denote n-variable C-circuits of size <= s(n). We show: Learning Speedups: If C[s(n)] admits a randomized weak learning algorithm under the uniform distribution with membership queries that runs in time 2^n/n^{omega(1)}, then for every k >= 1 and epsilon > 0 the class C[n^k] can be learned to high accuracy in time O(2^{n^epsilon}). There is epsilon > 0 such that C[2^{n^{epsilon}}] can be learned in time 2^n/n^{omega(1)} if and only if C[poly(n)] can be learned in time 2^{(log(n))^{O(1)}}. Equivalences between Learning Models: We use learning speedups to obtain equivalences between various randomized learning and compression models, including sub-exponential time learning with membership queries, sub-exponential time learning with membership and equivalence queries, probabilistic function compression and probabilistic average-case function compression. A Dichotomy between Learnability and Pseudorandomness: In the non-uniform setting, there is non-trivial learning for C[poly(n)] if and only if there are no exponentially secure pseudorandom functions computable in C[poly(n)]. Lower Bounds from Nontrivial Learning: If for each k >= 1, (depth-d)-C[n^k] admits a randomized weak learning algorithm with membership queries under the uniform distribution that runs in time 2^n/n^{omega(1)}, then for each k >= 1, BPE is not contained in (depth-d)-C[n^k]. If for some epsilon > 0 there are P-natural proofs useful against C[2^{n^{epsilon}}], then ZPEXP is not contained in C[poly(n)]. Karp-Lipton Theorems for Probabilistic Classes: If there is a k > 0 such that BPE is contained in i.o.Circuit[n^k], then BPEXP is contained in i.o.EXP/O(log(n)). If ZPEXP is contained in i.o.Circuit[2^{n/3}], then ZPEXP is contained in i.o.ESUBEXP. Hardness Results for MCSP: All functions in non-uniform NC^1 reduce to the Minimum Circuit Size Problem via truth-table reductions computable by TC^0 circuits. In particular, if MCSP is in TC^0 then NC^1 = TC^0