AC0(MOD2) lower bounds for the Boolean inner product

AC0 ◦MOD2 circuits are AC0 circuits augmented with a layer of parity gates just above the input layer. We study AC0 ◦ MOD2 circuit lower bounds for computing the Boolean Inner Product functions. Recent works by Servedio and Viola (ECCC TR12-144) and Akavia et al. (ITCS 2014) have highlighted this problem as a frontier problem in circuit complexity that arose both as a first step towards solving natural special cases of the matrix rigidity problem and as a candidate for constructing pseudorandom generators of minimal complexity. We give the first superlinear lower bound for the Boolean Inner Product function against AC0 ◦ MOD2 of depth four or greater. Specifically, we prove a superlinear lower bound for circuits of arbitrary constant depth, and an Ω( ˜ n 2 ) lower bound for the special case of depth-4 AC0 ◦ MOD2. Our proof of the depth-4 lower bound employs a new “moment-matching” inequality for bounded, nonnegative integer-valued random variables that may be of independent interest: we prove an optimal bound on the maximum difference between two discrete distributions’ values at 0, given that their first d moments match

Sums of products of polynomials in few variables : lower bounds and polynomial identity testing

We study the complexity of representing polynomials as a sum of products of polynomials in few variables. More precisely, we study representations of the form $$P = \sum_{i = 1}^T \prod_{j = 1}^d Q_{ij}$$ such that each $Q_{ij}$ is an arbitrary polynomial that depends on at most $s$ variables. We prove the following results. 1. Over fields of characteristic zero, for every constant $\mu$ such that $0 \leq \mu < 1$, we give an explicit family of polynomials $\{P_{N}\}$, where $P_{N}$ is of degree $n$ in $N = n^{O(1)}$ variables, such that any representation of the above type for $P_{N}$ with $s = N^{\mu}$ requires $Td \geq n^{\Omega(\sqrt{n})}$. This strengthens a recent result of Kayal and Saha [KS14a] which showed similar lower bounds for the model of sums of products of linear forms in few variables. It is known that any asymptotic improvement in the exponent of the lower bounds (even for $s = \sqrt{n}$) would separate VP and VNP[KS14a]. 2. We obtain a deterministic subexponential time blackbox polynomial identity testing (PIT) algorithm for circuits computed by the above model when $T$ and the individual degree of each variable in $P$ are at most $\log^{O(1)} N$ and $s \leq N^{\mu}$ for any constant $\mu < 1/2$. We get quasipolynomial running time when $s < \log^{O(1)} N$. The PIT algorithm is obtained by combining our lower bounds with the hardness-randomness tradeoffs developed in [DSY09, KI04]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first nontrivial PIT algorithm for this model (even for the case $s=2$), and the first nontrivial PIT algorithm obtained from lower bounds for small depth circuits

Circuits with arbitrary gates for random operators

We consider boolean circuits computing n-operators f:{0,1}^n --> {0,1}^n. As gates we allow arbitrary boolean functions; neither fanin nor fanout of gates is restricted. An operator is linear if it computes n linear forms, that is, computes a matrix-vector product y=Ax over GF(2). We prove the existence of n-operators requiring about n^2 wires in any circuit, and linear n-operators requiring about n^2/\log n wires in depth-2 circuits, if either all output gates or all gates on the middle layer are linear.Comment: 7 page

Arithmetic circuits: the chasm at depth four gets wider

In their paper on the "chasm at depth four", Agrawal and Vinay have shown that polynomials in m variables of degree O(m) which admit arithmetic circuits of size 2^o(m) also admit arithmetic circuits of depth four and size 2^o(m). This theorem shows that for problems such as arithmetic circuit lower bounds or black-box derandomization of identity testing, the case of depth four circuits is in a certain sense the general case. In this paper we show that smaller depth four circuits can be obtained if we start from polynomial size arithmetic circuits. For instance, we show that if the permanent of n*n matrices has circuits of size polynomial in n, then it also has depth 4 circuits of size n^O(sqrt(n)*log(n)). Our depth four circuits use integer constants of polynomial size. These results have potential applications to lower bounds and deterministic identity testing, in particular for sums of products of sparse univariate polynomials. We also give an application to boolean circuit complexity, and a simple (but suboptimal) reduction to polylogarithmic depth for arithmetic circuits of polynomial size and polynomially bounded degree

Quasi-polynomial Hitting-set for Set-depth-Delta Formulas

We call a depth-4 formula C set-depth-4 if there exists a (unknown) partition (X_1,...,X_d) of the variable indices [n] that the top product layer respects, i.e. C(x) = \sum_{i=1}^k \prod_{j=1}^{d} f_{i,j}(x_{X_j}), where f_{i,j} is a sparse polynomial in F[x_{X_j}]. Extending this definition to any depth - we call a depth-Delta formula C (consisting of alternating layers of Sigma and Pi gates, with a Sigma-gate on top) a set-depth-Delta formula if every Pi-layer in C respects a (unknown) partition on the variables; if Delta is even then the product gates of the bottom-most Pi-layer are allowed to compute arbitrary monomials. In this work, we give a hitting-set generator for set-depth-Delta formulas (over any field) with running time polynomial in exp(({Delta}^2 log s)^{Delta - 1}), where s is the size bound on the input set-depth-Delta formula. In other words, we give a quasi-polynomial time blackbox polynomial identity test for such constant-depth formulas. Previously, the very special case of Delta=3 (also known as set-multilinear depth-3 circuits) had no known sub-exponential time hitting-set generator. This was declared as an open problem by Shpilka & Yehudayoff (FnT-TCS 2010); the model being first studied by Nisan & Wigderson (FOCS 1995). Our work settles this question, not only for depth-3 but, up to depth epsilon.log s / loglog s, for a fixed constant epsilon < 1. The technique is to investigate depth-Delta formulas via depth-(Delta-1) formulas over a Hadamard algebra, after applying a `shift' on the variables. We propose a new algebraic conjecture about the low-support rank-concentration in the latter formulas, and manage to prove it in the case of set-depth-Delta formulas.Comment: 22 page

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