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

Arithmetic Circuit Lower Bounds via MaxRank

We introduce the polynomial coefficient matrix and identify maximum rank of this matrix under variable substitution as a complexity measure for multivariate polynomials. We use our techniques to prove super-polynomial lower bounds against several classes of non-multilinear arithmetic circuits. In particular, we obtain the following results : As our main result, we prove that any homogeneous depth-3 circuit for computing the product of $d$ matrices of dimension $n \times n$ requires $\Omega(n^{d-1}/2^d)$ size. This improves the lower bounds by Nisan and Wigderson(1995) when $d=\omega(1)$. There is an explicit polynomial on $n$ variables and degree at most $\frac{n}{2}$ for which any depth-3 circuit $C$ of product dimension at most $\frac{n}{10}$ (dimension of the space of affine forms feeding into each product gate) requires size $2^{\Omega(n)}$. This generalizes the lower bounds against diagonal circuits proved by Saxena(2007). Diagonal circuits are of product dimension 1. We prove a $n^{\Omega(\log n)}$ lower bound on the size of product-sparse formulas. By definition, any multilinear formula is a product-sparse formula. Thus, our result extends the known super-polynomial lower bounds on the size of multilinear formulas by Raz(2006). We prove a $2^{\Omega(n)}$ lower bound on the size of partitioned arithmetic branching programs. This result extends the known exponential lower bound on the size of ordered arithmetic branching programs given by Jansen(2008).Comment: 22 page

Barriers for Rank Methods in Arithmetic Complexity

Arithmetic complexity, the study of the cost of computing polynomials via additions and multiplications, is considered (for many good reasons) simpler to understand than Boolean complexity, namely computing Boolean functions via logical gates. And indeed, we seem to have significantly more lower bound techniques and results in arithmetic complexity than in Boolean complexity. Despite many successes and rapid progress, however, foundational challenges, like proving super-polynomial lower bounds on circuit or formula size for explicit polynomials, or super-linear lower bounds on explicit 3-dimensional tensors, remain elusive. At the same time (and possibly for similar reasons), we have plenty more excuses, in the form of "barrier results" for failing to prove basic lower bounds in Boolean complexity than in arithmetic complexity. Efforts to find barriers to arithmetic lower bound techniques seem harder, and despite some attempts we have no excuses of similar quality for these failures in arithmetic complexity. This paper aims to add to this study. In this paper we address rank methods, which were long recognized as encompassing and abstracting almost all known arithmetic lower bounds to-date, including the most recent impressive successes. Rank methods (under the name of flattenings) are also in wide use in algebraic geometry for proving tensor rank and symmetric tensor rank lower bounds. Our main results are barriers to these methods. In particular, 1. Rank methods cannot prove better than (2^d)*n^(d/2) lower bound on the tensor rank of any d-dimensional tensor of side n. (In particular, they cannot prove super-linear, indeed even >8n tensor rank lower bounds for any 3-dimensional tensors.) 2. Rank methods cannot prove (d+1)n^(d/2) on the Waring rank of any n-variate polynomial of degree d. (In particular, they cannot prove such lower bounds on stronger models, including depth-3 circuits.) The proofs of these bounds use simple linear-algebraic arguments, leveraging connections between the symbolic rank of matrix polynomials and the usual rank of their evaluations. These techniques can perhaps be extended to barriers for other arithmetic models on which progress has halted. To see how these barrier results directly inform the state-of-art in arithmetic complexity we note the following. First, the bounds above nearly match the best explicit bounds we know for these models, hence offer an explanations why the rank methods got stuck there. Second, the bounds above are a far cry (quadratically away) from the true complexity (e.g. of random polynomials) in these models, which if achieved (by any methods), are known to imply super-polynomial formula lower bounds. We also explain the relation of our barrier results to other attempts, and in particular how they significantly differ from the recent attempts to find analogues of "natural proofs" for arithmetic complexity. Finally, we discuss the few arithmetic lower bound approaches which fall outside rank methods, and some natural directions our barriers suggest

Nondeterministic quantum communication complexity: the cyclic equality game and iterated matrix multiplication

We study nondeterministic multiparty quantum communication with a quantum generalization of broadcasts. We show that, with number-in-hand classical inputs, the communication complexity of a Boolean function in this communication model equals the logarithm of the support rank of the corresponding tensor, whereas the approximation complexity in this model equals the logarithm of the border support rank. This characterisation allows us to prove a log-rank conjecture posed by Villagra et al. for nondeterministic multiparty quantum communication with message-passing. The support rank characterization of the communication model connects quantum communication complexity intimately to the theory of asymptotic entanglement transformation and algebraic complexity theory. In this context, we introduce the graphwise equality problem. For a cycle graph, the complexity of this communication problem is closely related to the complexity of the computational problem of multiplying matrices, or more precisely, it equals the logarithm of the asymptotic support rank of the iterated matrix multiplication tensor. We employ Strassen's laser method to show that asymptotically there exist nontrivial protocols for every odd-player cyclic equality problem. We exhibit an efficient protocol for the 5-player problem for small inputs, and we show how Young flattenings yield nontrivial complexity lower bounds

Some Results on the Complexity of Numerical Integration

This is a survey (21 pages, 124 references) written for the MCQMC 2014 conference in Leuven, April 2014. We start with the seminal paper of Bakhvalov (1959) and end with new results on the curse of dimension and on the complexity of oscillatory integrals. Some small errors of earlier versions are corrected