Polynomial Threshold Functions, AC^0 Functions and Spectral Norms

The class of polynomial-threshold functions is studied using harmonic analysis, and the results are used to derive lower bounds related to AC^0 functions. A Boolean function is polynomial threshold if it can be represented as a sign function of a sparse polynomial (one that consists of a polynomial number of terms). The main result is that polynomial-threshold functions can be characterized by means of their spectral representation. In particular, it is proved that a Boolean function whose L_1 spectral norm is bounded by a polynomial in n is a polynomial-threshold function, and that a Boolean function whose L_∞^(-1) spectral norm is not bounded by a polynomial in n is not a polynomial-threshold function. Some results for AC^0 functions are derived

A Satisfiability Algorithm for Sparse Depth Two Threshold Circuits

We give a nontrivial algorithm for the satisfiability problem for cn-wire threshold circuits of depth two which is better than exhaustive search by a factor 2^{sn} where s= 1/c^{O(c^2)}. We believe that this is the first nontrivial satisfiability algorithm for cn-wire threshold circuits of depth two. The independently interesting problem of the feasibility of sparse 0-1 integer linear programs is a special case. To our knowledge, our algorithm is the first to achieve constant savings even for the special case of Integer Linear Programming. The key idea is to reduce the satisfiability problem to the Vector Domination Problem, the problem of checking whether there are two vectors in a given collection of vectors such that one dominates the other component-wise. We also provide a satisfiability algorithm with constant savings for depth two circuits with symmetric gates where the total weighted fan-in is at most cn. One of our motivations is proving strong lower bounds for TC^0 circuits, exploiting the connection (established by Williams) between satisfiability algorithms and lower bounds. Our second motivation is to explore the connection between the expressive power of the circuits and the complexity of the corresponding circuit satisfiability problem

String Matching: Communication, Circuits, and Learning

String matching is the problem of deciding whether a given n-bit string contains a given k-bit pattern. We study the complexity of this problem in three settings. - Communication complexity. For small k, we provide near-optimal upper and lower bounds on the communication complexity of string matching. For large k, our bounds leave open an exponential gap; we exhibit some evidence for the existence of a better protocol. - Circuit complexity. We present several upper and lower bounds on the size of circuits with threshold and DeMorgan gates solving the string matching problem. Similarly to the above, our bounds are near-optimal for small k. - Learning. We consider the problem of learning a hidden pattern of length at most k relative to the classifier that assigns 1 to every string that contains the pattern. We prove optimal bounds on the VC dimension and sample complexity of this problem

Three Puzzles on Mathematics, Computation, and Games

In this lecture I will talk about three mathematical puzzles involving mathematics and computation that have preoccupied me over the years. The first puzzle is to understand the amazing success of the simplex algorithm for linear programming. The second puzzle is about errors made when votes are counted during elections. The third puzzle is: are quantum computers possible?Comment: ICM 2018 plenary lecture, Rio de Janeiro, 36 pages, 7 Figure

Quantified Derandomization of Linear Threshold Circuits

One of the prominent current challenges in complexity theory is the attempt to prove lower bounds for $TC^0$, the class of constant-depth, polynomial-size circuits with majority gates. Relying on the results of Williams (2013), an appealing approach to prove such lower bounds is to construct a non-trivial derandomization algorithm for $TC^0$. In this work we take a first step towards the latter goal, by proving the first positive results regarding the derandomization of $TC^0$ circuits of depth $d>2$. Our first main result is a quantified derandomization algorithm for $TC^0$ circuits with a super-linear number of wires. Specifically, we construct an algorithm that gets as input a $TC^0$ circuit $C$ over $n$ input bits with depth $d$ and $n^{1+\exp(-d)}$ wires, runs in almost-polynomial-time, and distinguishes between the case that $C$ rejects at most $2^{n^{1-1/5d}}$ inputs and the case that $C$ accepts at most $2^{n^{1-1/5d}}$ inputs. In fact, our algorithm works even when the circuit $C$ is a linear threshold circuit, rather than just a $TC^0$ circuit (i.e., $C$ is a circuit with linear threshold gates, which are stronger than majority gates). Our second main result is that even a modest improvement of our quantified derandomization algorithm would yield a non-trivial algorithm for standard derandomization of all of $TC^0$, and would consequently imply that $NEXP\not\subseteq TC^0$. Specifically, if there exists a quantified derandomization algorithm that gets as input a $TC^0$ circuit with depth $d$ and $n^{1+O(1/d)}$ wires (rather than $n^{1+\exp(-d)}$ wires), runs in time at most $2^{n^{\exp(-d)}}$, and distinguishes between the case that $C$ rejects at most $2^{n^{1-1/5d}}$ inputs and the case that $C$ accepts at most $2^{n^{1-1/5d}}$ inputs, then there exists an algorithm with running time $2^{n^{1-\Omega(1)}}$ for standard derandomization of $TC^0$.Comment: Changes in this revision: An additional result (a PRG for quantified derandomization of depth-2 LTF circuits); rewrite of some of the exposition; minor correction