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

Improved Pseudorandom Generators from Pseudorandom Multi-Switching Lemmas

We give the best known pseudorandom generators for two touchstone classes in unconditional derandomization: an $\varepsilon$-PRG for the class of size-$M$ depth-$d$ $\mathsf{AC}^0$ circuits with seed length $\log(M)^{d+O(1)}\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)$, and an $\varepsilon$-PRG for the class of $S$-sparse $\mathbb{F}_2$ polynomials with seed length $2^{O(\sqrt{\log S})}\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)$. These results bring the state of the art for unconditional derandomization of these classes into sharp alignment with the state of the art for computational hardness for all parameter settings: improving on the seed lengths of either PRG would require breakthrough progress on longstanding and notorious circuit lower bounds. The key enabling ingredient in our approach is a new \emph{pseudorandom multi-switching lemma}. We derandomize recently-developed \emph{multi}-switching lemmas, which are powerful generalizations of H{\aa}stad's switching lemma that deal with \emph{families} of depth-two circuits. Our pseudorandom multi-switching lemma---a randomness-efficient algorithm for sampling restrictions that simultaneously simplify all circuits in a family---achieves the parameters obtained by the (full randomness) multi-switching lemmas of Impagliazzo, Matthews, and Paturi [IMP12] and H{\aa}stad [H{\aa}s14]. This optimality of our derandomization translates into the optimality (given current circuit lower bounds) of our PRGs for $\mathsf{AC}^0$ and sparse $\mathbb{F}_2$ polynomials

Improved Bounds for Quantified Derandomization of Constant-Depth Circuits and Polynomials

This work studies the question of quantified derandomization, which was introduced by Goldreich and Wigderson (STOC 2014). The generic quantified derandomization problem is the following: For a circuit class cal{C} and a parameter B=B(n), given a circuit C in cal{C} with n input bits, decide whether C rejects all of its inputs, or accepts all but B(n) of its inputs. In the current work we consider three settings for this question. In each setting, we bring closer the parameter setting for which we can unconditionally construct relatively fast quantified derandomization algorithms, and the "threshold" values (for the parameters) for which any quantified derandomization algorithm implies a similar algorithm for standard derandomization. For constant-depth circuits, we construct an algorithm for quantified derandomization that works for a parameter B(n) that is only slightly smaller than a "threshold" parameter, and is significantly faster than the best currently-known algorithms for standard derandomization. On the way to this result we establish a new derandomization of the switching lemma, which significantly improves on previous results when the width of the formula is small. For constant-depth circuits with parity gates, we lower a "threshold" of Goldreich and Wigderson from depth five to depth four, and construct algorithms for quantified derandomization of a remaining type of layered depth-3 circuit that they left as an open problem. We also consider the question of constructing hitting-set generators for multivariate polynomials over large fields that vanish rarely, and prove two lower bounds on the seed length of such generators. Several of our proofs rely on an interesting technique, which we call the randomized tests technique. Intuitively, a standard technique to deterministically find a "good" object is to construct a simple deterministic test that decides the set of good objects, and then "fool" that test using a pseudorandom generator. We show that a similar approach works also if the simple deterministic test is replaced with a distribution over simple tests, and demonstrate the benefits in using a distribution instead of a single test

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New