Discovering the roots: Uniform closure results for algebraic classes under factoring

Newton iteration (NI) is an almost 350 years old recursive formula that approximates a simple root of a polynomial quite rapidly. We generalize it to a matrix recurrence (allRootsNI) that approximates all the roots simultaneously. In this form, the process yields a better circuit complexity in the case when the number of roots $r$ is small but the multiplicities are exponentially large. Our method sets up a linear system in $r$ unknowns and iteratively builds the roots as formal power series. For an algebraic circuit $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ of size $s$ we prove that each factor has size at most a polynomial in: $s$ and the degree of the squarefree part of $f$. Consequently, if $f_1$ is a $2^{\Omega(n)}$-hard polynomial then any nonzero multiple $\prod_{i} f_i^{e_i}$ is equally hard for arbitrary positive $e_i$'s, assuming that $\sum_i \text{deg}(f_i)$ is at most $2^{O(n)}$. It is an old open question whether the class of poly($n$)-sized formulas (resp. algebraic branching programs) is closed under factoring. We show that given a polynomial $f$ of degree $n^{O(1)}$ and formula (resp. ABP) size $n^{O(\log n)}$ we can find a similar size formula (resp. ABP) factor in randomized poly($n^{\log n}$)-time. Consequently, if determinant requires $n^{\Omega(\log n)}$ size formula, then the same can be said about any of its nonzero multiples. As part of our proofs, we identify a new property of multivariate polynomial factorization. We show that under a random linear transformation $\tau$, $f(\tau\overline{x})$ completely factors via power series roots. Moreover, the factorization adapts well to circuit complexity analysis. This with allRootsNI are the techniques that help us make progress towards the old open problems, supplementing the large body of classical results and concepts in algebraic circuit factorization (eg. Zassenhaus, J.NT 1969, Kaltofen, STOC 1985-7 \& Burgisser, FOCS 2001).Comment: 33 Pages, No figure

Understanding the complexity of #SAT using knowledge compilation

Two main techniques have been used so far to solve the #P-hard problem #SAT. The first one, used in practice, is based on an extension of DPLL for model counting called exhaustive DPLL. The second approach, more theoretical, exploits the structure of the input to compute the number of satisfying assignments by usually using a dynamic programming scheme on a decomposition of the formula. In this paper, we make a first step toward the separation of these two techniques by exhibiting a family of formulas that can be solved in polynomial time with the first technique but needs an exponential time with the second one. We show this by observing that both techniques implicitely construct a very specific boolean circuit equivalent to the input formula. We then show that every beta-acyclic formula can be represented by a polynomial size circuit corresponding to the first method and exhibit a family of beta-acyclic formulas which cannot be represented by polynomial size circuits corresponding to the second method. This result shed a new light on the complexity of #SAT and related problems on beta-acyclic formulas. As a byproduct, we give new handy tools to design algorithms on beta-acyclic hypergraphs

Parallelizing Quantum Circuits

We present a novel automated technique for parallelizing quantum circuits via forward and backward translation to measurement-based quantum computing patterns and analyze the trade off in terms of depth and space complexity. As a result we distinguish a class of polynomial depth circuits that can be parallelized to logarithmic depth while adding only polynomial many auxiliary qubits. In particular, we provide for the first time a full characterization of patterns with flow of arbitrary depth, based on the notion of influencing paths and a simple rewriting system on the angles of the measurement. Our method leads to insightful knowledge for constructing parallel circuits and as applications, we demonstrate several constant and logarithmic depth circuits. Furthermore, we prove a logarithmic separation in terms of quantum depth between the quantum circuit model and the measurement-based model.Comment: 34 pages, 14 figures; depth complexity, measurement-based quantum computing and parallel computin

Interpolation in Valiant's theory

We investigate the following question: if a polynomial can be evaluated at rational points by a polynomial-time boolean algorithm, does it have a polynomial-size arithmetic circuit? We argue that this question is certainly difficult. Answering it negatively would indeed imply that the constant-free versions of the algebraic complexity classes VP and VNP defined by Valiant are different. Answering this question positively would imply a transfer theorem from boolean to algebraic complexity. Our proof method relies on Lagrange interpolation and on recent results connecting the (boolean) counting hierarchy to algebraic complexity classes. As a byproduct we obtain two additional results: (i) The constant-free, degree-unbounded version of Valiant's hypothesis that VP and VNP differ implies the degree-bounded version. This result was previously known to hold for fields of positive characteristic only. (ii) If exponential sums of easy to compute polynomials can be computed efficiently, then the same is true of exponential products. We point out an application of this result to the P=NP problem in the Blum-Shub-Smale model of computation over the field of complex numbers.Comment: 13 page

On lower bounds for circuit complexity and algorithms for satisfiability

This work is devoted to explore the novel method of proving circuit lower bounds for the class NEXP by Ryan Williams. Williams is able to show two circuit lower bounds: A conditional lower bound which says that NEXP does not have polynomial size circuits if there exists better-than-trivial algorithms for CIRCUIT SAT and an inconditional lower bound which says that NEXP does not have polynomial size circuits of the class ACC^0. We put special emphasis on the first result by exposing, in as much as of a self-contained manner as possible, all the results from complexity theory that Williams use in his proof. In particular, the focus is put in an efficient reduction from non-deterministic computations to satisfiability of Boolean formulas. The second result is also studied, although not as thoroughly, and some pointers with regards to the relationship of Williams' method and the known complexity theory barriers are given

Algebra in Computational Complexity

At its core, much of Computational Complexity is concerned with combinatorial objects and structures. But it has often proven true that the best way to prove things about these combinatorial objects is by establishing a connection to a more well-behaved algebraic setting. Indeed, many of the deepest and most powerful results in Computational Complexity rely on algebraic proof techniques. The Razborov-Smolensky polynomial-approximation method for proving constant-depth circuit lower bounds, the PCP characterization of NP, and the Agrawal-Kayal-Saxena polynomial-time primality test are some of the most prominent examples. The algebraic theme continues in some of the most exciting recent progress in computational complexity. There have been significant recent advances in algebraic circuit lower bounds, and the so-called "chasm at depth 4" suggests that the restricted models now being considered are not so far from ones that would lead to a general result. There have been similar successes concerning the related problems of polynomial identity testing and circuit reconstruction in the algebraic model, and these are tied to central questions regarding the power of randomness in computation. Representation theory has emerged as an important tool in three separate lines of work: the "Geometric Complexity Theory" approach to P vs. NP and circuit lower bounds, the effort to resolve the complexity of matrix multiplication, and a framework for constructing locally testable codes. Coding theory has seen several algebraic innovations in recent years, including multiplicity codes, and new lower bounds. This seminar brought together researchers who are using a diverse array of algebraic methods in a variety of settings. It plays an important role in educating a diverse community about the latest new techniques, spurring further progress