Circuit Depth Reductions

The best known size lower bounds against unrestricted circuits have remained around $3n$ for several decades. Moreover, the only known technique for proving lower bounds in this model, gate elimination, is inherently limited to proving lower bounds of less than $5n$. In this work, we propose a non-gate-elimination approach for obtaining circuit lower bounds, via certain depth-three lower bounds. We prove that every (unbounded-depth) circuit of size $s$ can be expressed as an OR of $2^{s/3.9}$ $16$-CNFs. For DeMorgan formulas, the best known size lower bounds have been stuck at around $n^{3-o(1)}$ for decades. Under a plausible hypothesis about probabilistic polynomials, we show that $n^{4-\varepsilon}$-size DeMorgan formulas have $2^{n^{1-\Omega(\varepsilon)}}$-size depth-3 circuits which are approximate sums of $n^{1-\Omega(\varepsilon)}$-degree polynomials over ${\mathbb F}_2$. While these structural results do not immediately lead to new lower bounds, they do suggest new avenues of attack on these longstanding lower bound problems. Our results complement the classical depth-$3$ reduction results of Valiant, which show that logarithmic-depth circuits of linear size can be computed by an OR of $2^{\varepsilon n}$ $n^{\delta}$-CNFs, and slightly stronger results for series-parallel circuits. It is known that no purely graph-theoretic reduction could yield interesting depth-3 circuits from circuits of super-logarithmic depth. We overcome this limitation (for small-size circuits) by taking into account both the graph-theoretic and functional properties of circuits and formulas. We show that improvements of the following pseudorandom constructions imply new circuit lower bounds: dispersers for varieties, correlation with constant degree polynomials, matrix rigidity, and hardness for depth-$3$ circuits with constant bottom fan-in

Lifting for Constant-Depth Circuits and Applications to MCSP

Lifting arguments show that the complexity of a function in one model is essentially that of a related function (often the composition of the original function with a small function called a gadget) in a more powerful model. Lifting has been used to prove strong lower bounds in communication complexity, proof complexity, circuit complexity and many other areas. We present a lifting construction for constant depth unbounded fan-in circuits. Given a function f, we construct a function g, so that the depth d+1 circuit complexity of g, with a certain restriction on bottom fan-in, is controlled by the depth d circuit complexity of f, with the same restriction. The function g is defined as f composed with a parity function. With some quantitative losses, average-case and general depth-d circuit complexity can be reduced to circuit complexity with this bottom fan-in restriction. As a consequence, an algorithm to approximate the depth d (for any d > 3) circuit complexity of given (truth tables of) Boolean functions yields an algorithm for approximating the depth 3 circuit complexity of functions, i.e., there are quasi-polynomial time mapping reductions between various gap-versions of AC?-MCSP. Our lifting results rely on a blockwise switching lemma that may be of independent interest. We also show some barriers on improving the efficiency of our reductions: such improvements would yield either surprisingly efficient algorithms for MCSP or stronger than known AC? circuit lower bounds

Approaching MCSP from Above and Below: Hardness for a Conditional Variant and AC^0[p]

The Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) asks whether a given Boolean function has a circuit of at most a given size. MCSP has been studied for over a half-century and has deep connections throughout theoretical computer science including to cryptography, computational learning theory, and proof complexity. For example, we know (informally) that if MCSP is easy to compute, then most cryptography can be broken. Despite this cryptographic hardness connection and extensive research, we still know relatively little about the hardness of MCSP unconditionally. Indeed, until very recently it was unknown whether MCSP can be computed in AC^0[2] (Golovnev et al., ICALP 2019). Our main contribution in this paper is to formulate a new "oracle" variant of circuit complexity and prove that this problem is NP-complete under randomized reductions. In more detail, we define the Minimum Oracle Circuit Size Problem (MOCSP) that takes as input the truth table of a Boolean function f, a size threshold s, and the truth table of an oracle Boolean function O, and determines whether there is a circuit with O-oracle gates and at most s wires that computes f. We prove that MOCSP is NP-complete under randomized polynomial-time reductions. We also extend the recent AC^0[p] lower bound against MCSP by Golovnev et al. to a lower bound against the circuit minimization problem for depth-d formulas, (AC^0_d)-MCSP. We view this result as primarily a technical contribution. In particular, our proof takes a radically different approach from prior MCSP-related hardness results

On the power of homogeneous depth 4 arithmetic circuits

We prove exponential lower bounds on the size of homogeneous depth 4 arithmetic circuits computing an explicit polynomial in $VP$. Our results hold for the {\it Iterated Matrix Multiplication} polynomial - in particular we show that any homogeneous depth 4 circuit computing the $(1,1)$ entry in the product of $n$ generic matrices of dimension $n^{O(1)}$ must have size $n^{\Omega(\sqrt{n})}$. Our results strengthen previous works in two significant ways. Our lower bounds hold for a polynomial in $VP$. Prior to our work, Kayal et al [KLSS14] proved an exponential lower bound for homogeneous depth 4 circuits (over fields of characteristic zero) computing a poly in $VNP$. The best known lower bounds for a depth 4 homogeneous circuit computing a poly in $VP$ was the bound of $n^{\Omega(\log n)}$ by [LSS, KLSS14].Our exponential lower bounds also give the first exponential separation between general arithmetic circuits and homogeneous depth 4 arithmetic circuits. In particular they imply that the depth reduction results of Koiran [Koi12] and Tavenas [Tav13] are tight even for reductions to general homogeneous depth 4 circuits (without the restriction of bounded bottom fanin). Our lower bound holds over all fields. The lower bound of [KLSS14] worked only over fields of characteristic zero. Prior to our work, the best lower bound for homogeneous depth 4 circuits over fields of positive characteristic was $n^{\Omega(\log n)}$ [LSS, KLSS14]

Non-Malleable Codes for Small-Depth Circuits

We construct efficient, unconditional non-malleable codes that are secure against tampering functions computed by small-depth circuits. For constant-depth circuits of polynomial size (i.e. $\mathsf{AC^0}$ tampering functions), our codes have codeword length $n = k^{1+o(1)}$ for a $k$-bit message. This is an exponential improvement of the previous best construction due to Chattopadhyay and Li (STOC 2017), which had codeword length $2^{O(\sqrt{k})}$. Our construction remains efficient for circuit depths as large as $\Theta(\log(n)/\log\log(n))$ (indeed, our codeword length remains $n\leq k^{1+\epsilon})$, and extending our result beyond this would require separating $\mathsf{P}$ from $\mathsf{NC^1}$. We obtain our codes via a new efficient non-malleable reduction from small-depth tampering to split-state tampering. A novel aspect of our work is the incorporation of techniques from unconditional derandomization into the framework of non-malleable reductions. In particular, a key ingredient in our analysis is a recent pseudorandom switching lemma of Trevisan and Xue (CCC 2013), a derandomization of the influential switching lemma from circuit complexity; the randomness-efficiency of this switching lemma translates into the rate-efficiency of our codes via our non-malleable reduction.Comment: 26 pages, 4 figure

Verifying proofs in constant depth

In this paper we initiate the study of proof systems where verification of proofs proceeds by NC circuits. We investigate the question which languages admit proof systems in this very restricted model. Formulated alternatively, we ask which languages can be enumerated by NC functions. Our results show that the answer to this problem is not determined by the complexity of the language. On the one hand, we construct NC proof systems for a variety of languages ranging from regular to NP-complete. On the other hand, we show by combinatorial methods that even easy regular languages such as Exact-OR do not admit NC proof systems. We also present a general construction of proof systems for regular languages with strongly connected NFA's