Improved Explicit Hitting-Sets for ROABPs

We give improved explicit constructions of hitting-sets for read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs (ROABPs) and related models. For ROABPs in an unknown variable order, our hitting-set has size polynomial in (nr)^{(log n)/(max{1, log log n-log log r})}d over a field whose characteristic is zero or large enough, where n is the number of variables, d is the individual degree, and r is the width of the ROABP. A similar improved construction works over fields of arbitrary characteristic with a weaker size bound. Based on a result of Bisht and Saxena (2020), we also give an improved explicit construction of hitting-sets for sum of several ROABPs. In particular, when the characteristic of the field is zero or large enough, we give polynomial-size explicit hitting-sets for sum of constantly many log-variate ROABPs of width r = 2^{O(log d/log log d)}. Finally, we give improved explicit hitting-sets for polynomials computable by width-r ROABPs in any variable order, also known as any-order ROABPs. Our hitting-set has polynomial size for width r up to 2^{O(log(nd)/log log(nd))} or 2^{O(log^{1-?} (nd))}, depending on the characteristic of the field. Previously, explicit hitting-sets of polynomial size are unknown for r = ?(1)

Separation Between Read-once Oblivious Algebraic Branching Programs (ROABPs) and Multilinear Depth Three Circuits

We show an exponential separation between two well-studied models of algebraic computation, namely read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs (ROABPs) and multilinear depth three circuits. In particular we show the following: 1. There exists an explicit n-variate polynomial computable by linear sized multilinear depth three circuits (with only two product gates) such that every ROABP computing it requires 2^{Omega(n)} size. 2. Any multilinear depth three circuit computing IMM_{n,d} (the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial formed by multiplying d, n * n symbolic matrices) has n^{Omega(d)} size. IMM_{n,d} can be easily computed by a poly(n,d) sized ROABP. 3. Further, the proof of 2 yields an exponential separation between multilinear depth four and multilinear depth three circuits: There is an explicit n-variate, degree d polynomial computable by a poly(n,d) sized multilinear depth four circuit such that any multilinear depth three circuit computing it has size n^{Omega(d)}. This improves upon the quasi-polynomial separation result by Raz and Yehudayoff [2009] between these two models. The hard polynomial in 1 is constructed using a novel application of expander graphs in conjunction with the evaluation dimension measure used previously in Nisan [1991], Raz [2006,2009], Raz and Yehudayoff [2009], and Forbes and Shpilka [2013], while 2 is proved via a new adaptation of the dimension of the partial derivatives measure used by Nisan and Wigderson [1997]. Our lower bounds hold over any field

Deterministic Identity Testing Paradigms for Bounded Top-Fanin Depth-4 Circuits

Polynomial Identity Testing (PIT) is a fundamental computational problem. The famous depth-4 reduction (Agrawal & Vinay, FOCS\u2708) has made PIT for depth-4 circuits, an enticing pursuit. The largely open special-cases of sum-product-of-sum-of-univariates (?^[k] ? ? ?) and sum-product-of-constant-degree-polynomials (?^[k] ? ? ?^[?]), for constants k, ?, have been a source of many great ideas in the last two decades. For eg. depth-3 ideas (Dvir & Shpilka, STOC\u2705; Kayal & Saxena, CCC\u2706; Saxena & Seshadhri, FOCS\u2710, STOC\u2711); depth-4 ideas (Beecken, Mittmann & Saxena, ICALP\u2711; Saha,Saxena & Saptharishi, Comput.Compl.\u2713; Forbes, FOCS\u2715; Kumar & Saraf, CCC\u2716); geometric Sylvester-Gallai ideas (Kayal & Saraf, FOCS\u2709; Shpilka, STOC\u2719; Peleg & Shpilka, CCC\u2720, STOC\u2721). We solve two of the basic underlying open problems in this work. We give the first polynomial-time PIT for ?^[k] ? ? ?. Further, we give the first quasipolynomial time blackbox PIT for both ?^[k] ? ? ? and ?^[k] ? ? ?^[?]. No subexponential time algorithm was known prior to this work (even if k = ? = 3). A key technical ingredient in all the three algorithms is how the logarithmic derivative, and its power-series, modify the top ?-gate to ?