On the Limits of Depth Reduction at Depth 3 Over Small Finite Fields

Recently, Gupta et.al. [GKKS2013] proved that over Q any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in VP can also be computed by a depth three $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log^{3/2}n)}$. Over fixed-size finite fields, Grigoriev and Karpinski proved that any $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit that computes $Det_n$ (or $Perm_n$) must be of size $2^{\Omega(n)}$ [GK1998]. In this paper, we prove that over fixed-size finite fields, any $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit for computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial of $n$ generic matrices of size $n\times n$, must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$. The importance of this result is that over fixed-size fields there is no depth reduction technique that can be used to compute all the $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomials in VP by depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$. The result [GK1998] can only rule out such a possibility for depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n)}$. We also give an example of an explicit polynomial ($NW_{n,\epsilon}(X)$) in VNP (not known to be in VP), for which any $\Sigma\Pi\Sigma$ circuit computing it (over fixed-size fields) must be of size $2^{\Omega(n\log n)}$. The polynomial we consider is constructed from the combinatorial design. An interesting feature of this result is that we get the first examples of two polynomials (one in VP and one in VNP) such that they have provably stronger circuit size lower bounds than Permanent in a reasonably strong model of computation. Next, we prove that any depth 4 $\Sigma\Pi^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}\Sigma\Pi^{[\sqrt{n}]}$ circuit computing $NW_{n,\epsilon}(X)$ (over any field) must be of size $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. To the best of our knowledge, the polynomial $NW_{n,\epsilon}(X)$ is the first example of an explicit polynomial in VNP such that it requires $2^{\Omega(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ size depth four circuits, but no known matching upper bound

Limits to Non-Malleability

There have been many successes in constructing explicit non-malleable codes for various classes of tampering functions in recent years, and strong existential results are also known. In this work we ask the following question: When can we rule out the existence of a non-malleable code for a tampering class ?? First, we start with some classes where positive results are well-known, and show that when these classes are extended in a natural way, non-malleable codes are no longer possible. Specifically, we show that no non-malleable codes exist for any of the following tampering classes: - Functions that change d/2 symbols, where d is the distance of the code; - Functions where each input symbol affects only a single output symbol; - Functions where each of the n output bits is a function of n-log n input bits. Furthermore, we rule out constructions of non-malleable codes for certain classes ? via reductions to the assumption that a distributional problem is hard for ?, that make black-box use of the tampering functions in the proof. In particular, this yields concrete obstacles for the construction of efficient codes for NC, even assuming average-case variants of P ? NC

The disjointness of stabilizer codes and limitations on fault-tolerant logical gates

Stabilizer codes are a simple and successful class of quantum error-correcting codes. Yet this success comes in spite of some harsh limitations on the ability of these codes to fault-tolerantly compute. Here we introduce a new metric for these codes, the disjointness, which, roughly speaking, is the number of mostly non-overlapping representatives of any given non-trivial logical Pauli operator. We use the disjointness to prove that transversal gates on error-detecting stabilizer codes are necessarily in a finite level of the Clifford hierarchy. We also apply our techniques to topological code families to find similar bounds on the level of the hierarchy attainable by constant depth circuits, regardless of their geometric locality. For instance, we can show that symmetric 2D surface codes cannot have non-local constant depth circuits for non-Clifford gates.Comment: 8+3 pages, 2 figures. Comments welcom

The Road to Quantum Computational Supremacy

We present an idiosyncratic view of the race for quantum computational supremacy. Google's approach and IBM challenge are examined. An unexpected side-effect of the race is the significant progress in designing fast classical algorithms. Quantum supremacy, if achieved, won't make classical computing obsolete.Comment: 15 pages, 1 figur

Non-classical computing: feasible versus infeasible

Physics sets certain limits on what is and is not computable. These limits are very far from having been reached by current technologies. Whilst proposals for hypercomputation are almost certainly infeasible, there are a number of non classical approaches that do hold considerable promise. There are a range of possible architectures that could be implemented on silicon that are distinctly different from the von Neumann model. Beyond this, quantum simulators, which are the quantum equivalent of analogue computers, may be constructable in the near future