Near-optimal small-depth lower bounds for small distance connectivity

We show that any depth-$d$ circuit for determining whether an $n$-node graph has an $s$-to-$t$ path of length at most $k$ must have size $n^{\Omega(k^{1/d}/d)}$. The previous best circuit size lower bounds for this problem were $n^{k^{\exp(-O(d))}}$ (due to Beame, Impagliazzo, and Pitassi [BIP98]) and $n^{\Omega((\log k)/d)}$ (following from a recent formula size lower bound of Rossman [Ros14]). Our lower bound is quite close to optimal, since a simple construction gives depth-$d$ circuits of size $n^{O(k^{2/d})}$ for this problem (and strengthening our bound even to $n^{k^{\Omega(1/d)}}$ would require proving that undirected connectivity is not in $\mathsf{NC^1}.$) Our proof is by reduction to a new lower bound on the size of small-depth circuits computing a skewed variant of the "Sipser functions" that have played an important role in classical circuit lower bounds [Sip83, Yao85, H{\aa}s86]. A key ingredient in our proof of the required lower bound for these Sipser-like functions is the use of \emph{random projections}, an extension of random restrictions which were recently employed in [RST15]. Random projections allow us to obtain sharper quantitative bounds while employing simpler arguments, both conceptually and technically, than in the previous works [Ajt89, BPU92, BIP98, Ros14]

An average-case depth hierarchy theorem for Boolean circuits

We prove an average-case depth hierarchy theorem for Boolean circuits over the standard basis of $\mathsf{AND}$, $\mathsf{OR}$, and $\mathsf{NOT}$ gates. Our hierarchy theorem says that for every $d \geq 2$, there is an explicit $n$-variable Boolean function $f$, computed by a linear-size depth-$d$ formula, which is such that any depth-$(d-1)$ circuit that agrees with $f$ on $(1/2 + o_n(1))$ fraction of all inputs must have size $\exp({n^{\Omega(1/d)}}).$ This answers an open question posed by H{\aa}stad in his Ph.D. thesis. Our average-case depth hierarchy theorem implies that the polynomial hierarchy is infinite relative to a random oracle with probability 1, confirming a conjecture of H{\aa}stad, Cai, and Babai. We also use our result to show that there is no "approximate converse" to the results of Linial, Mansour, Nisan and Boppana on the total influence of small-depth circuits, thus answering a question posed by O'Donnell, Kalai, and Hatami. A key ingredient in our proof is a notion of \emph{random projections} which generalize random restrictions

Formulas vs. Circuits for Small Distance Connectivity

We give the first super-polynomial separation in the power of bounded-depth boolean formulas vs. circuits. Specifically, we consider the problem Distance $k(n)$ Connectivity, which asks whether two specified nodes in a graph of size $n$ are connected by a path of length at most $k(n)$. This problem is solvable (by the recursive doubling technique) on {\bf circuits} of depth $O(\log k)$ and size $O(kn^3)$. In contrast, we show that solving this problem on {\bf formulas} of depth $\log n/(\log\log n)^{O(1)}$ requires size $n^{\Omega(\log k)}$ for all $k(n) \leq \log\log n$. As corollaries: (i) It follows that polynomial-size circuits for Distance $k(n)$ Connectivity require depth $\Omega(\log k)$ for all $k(n) \leq \log\log n$. This matches the upper bound from recursive doubling and improves a previous $\Omega(\log\log k)$ lower bound of Beame, Pitassi and Impagliazzo [BIP98]. (ii) We get a tight lower bound of $s^{\Omega(d)}$ on the size required to simulate size-$s$ depth-$d$ circuits by depth-$d$ formulas for all $s(n) = n^{O(1)}$ and $d(n) \leq \log\log\log n$. No lower bound better than $s^{\Omega(1)}$ was previously known for any $d(n) \nleq O(1)$. Our proof technique is centered on a new notion of pathset complexity, which roughly speaking measures the minimum cost of constructing a set of (partial) paths in a universe of size $n$ via the operations of union and relational join, subject to certain density constraints. Half of our proof shows that bounded-depth formulas solving Distance $k(n)$ Connectivity imply upper bounds on pathset complexity. The other half is a combinatorial lower bound on pathset complexity

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

Near-optimal small-depth lower bounds for small distance connectivity

We show that any depth-d circuit for determining whether an n-node graph has an s-to-t path of length at most k must have size nΩ(k1/d/d). The previous best circuit size lower bounds for this problem were nkexp(−O(d)) (due to Beame, Impagliazzo, and Pitassi [BIP98]) and nΩ((log k)/d) (following from a recent formula size lower bound of Rossman [Ros14]). Our lower bound is quite close to optimal, since a simple construction gives depth-d circuits of size nO(k2/d) for this problem (and strengthening our bound even to nkΩ(1/d) would require proving that undirected connectivity is not in NC1.) Our proof is by reduction to a new lower bound on the size of small-depth circuits computing a skewed variant of the “Sipser functions” that have played an important role in classical circuit lower bounds [Sip83, Yao85, H˚as86]. A key ingredient in our proof of the required lower bound for these Sipser-like functions is the use of random projections, an extension of random restrictions which were recently employed in [RST15]. Random projections allow us to obtain sharper quantitative bounds while employing simpler arguments, both conceptually and technically, than in the previous works [Ajt89, BPU92, BIP98, Ros14]

Bounded Independence Fools Degree-2 Threshold Functions

Let x be a random vector coming from any k-wise independent distribution over {-1,1}^n. For an n-variate degree-2 polynomial p, we prove that E[sgn(p(x))] is determined up to an additive epsilon for k = poly(1/epsilon). This answers an open question of Diakonikolas et al. (FOCS 2009). Using standard constructions of k-wise independent distributions, we obtain a broad class of explicit generators that epsilon-fool the class of degree-2 threshold functions with seed length log(n)*poly(1/epsilon). Our approach is quite robust: it easily extends to yield that the intersection of any constant number of degree-2 threshold functions is epsilon-fooled by poly(1/epsilon)-wise independence. Our results also hold if the entries of x are k-wise independent standard normals, implying for example that bounded independence derandomizes the Goemans-Williamson hyperplane rounding scheme. To achieve our results, we introduce a technique we dub multivariate FT-mollification, a generalization of the univariate form introduced by Kane et al. (SODA 2010) in the context of streaming algorithms. Along the way we prove a generalized hypercontractive inequality for quadratic forms which takes the operator norm of the associated matrix into account. These techniques may be of independent interest.Comment: Using v1 numbering: removed Lemma G.5 from the Appendix (it was wrong). Net effect is that Theorem G.6 reduces the m^6 dependence of Theorem 8.1 to m^4, not m^