Succinct Hitting Sets and Barriers to Proving Lower Bounds for Algebraic Circuits

We formalize a framework of algebraically natural lower bounds for algebraic circuits. Just as with the natural proofs notion of Razborov and Rudich (1997) for Boolean circuit lower bounds, our notion of algebraically natural lower bounds captures nearly all lower bound techniques known. However, unlike in the Boolean setting, there has been no concrete evidence demonstrating that this is a barrier to obtaining super-polynomial lower bounds for general algebraic circuits, as there is little understanding whether algebraic circuits are expressive enough to support “cryptography” secure against algebraic circuits. Following a similar result of Williams (2016) in the Boolean setting, we show that the existence of an algebraic natural proofs barrier is equivalent to the existence of succinct derandomization of the polynomial identity testing problem, that is, to the existence of a hitting set for the class of poly(N)-degree poly(N)-size circuits which consists of coefficient vectors of polynomials of polylog(N) degree with polylog(N)-size circuits. Further, we give an explicit universal construction showing that if such a succinct hitting set exists, then our universal construction suffices. Further, we assess the existing literature constructing hitting sets for restricted classes of algebraic circuits and observe that none of them are succinct as given. Yet, we show how to modify some of these constructions to obtain succinct hitting sets. This constitutes the first evidence supporting the existence of an algebraic natural proofs barrier. Our framework is similar to the Geometric Complexity Theory (GCT) program of Mulmuley and Sohoni (2001), except that here we emphasize constructiveness of the proofs while the GCT program emphasizes symmetry. Nevertheless, our succinct hitting sets have relevance to the GCT program as they imply lower bounds for the complexity of the defining equations of polynomials computed by small circuits. A conference version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2017)

On Annihilators of Explicit Polynomial Maps

We study the algebraic complexity of annihilators of polynomials maps. In particular, when a polynomial map is `encoded by' a small algebraic circuit, we show that the coefficients of an annihilator of the map can be computed in PSPACE. Even when the underlying field is that of reals or complex numbers, an analogous statement is true. We achieve this by using the class VPSPACE that coincides with computability of coefficients in PSPACE, over integers. As a consequence, we derive the following two conditional results. First, we show that a VP-explicit hitting set generator for all of VP would separate either VP from VNP, or non-uniform P from PSPACE. Second, in relation to algebraic natural proofs, we show that proving an algebraic natural proofs barrier would imply either VP $\neq$ VNP or DSPACE($\log^{\log^{\ast}n} n$) $\not\subset$ P

If VNP Is Hard, Then so Are Equations for It

Assuming that the Permanent polynomial requires algebraic circuits of exponential size, we show that the class VNP does not have efficiently computable equations. In other words, any nonzero polynomial that vanishes on the coefficient vectors of all polynomials in the class VNP requires algebraic circuits of super-polynomial size. In a recent work of Chatterjee, Kumar, Ramya, Saptharishi and Tengse (FOCS 2020), it was shown that the subclasses of VP and VNP consisting of polynomials with bounded integer coefficients do have equations with small algebraic circuits. Their work left open the possibility that these results could perhaps be extended to all of VP or VNP. The results in this paper show that assuming the hardness of Permanent, at least for VNP, allowing polynomials with large coefficients does indeed incur a significant blow up in the circuit complexity of equations

Towards Verifying Nonlinear Integer Arithmetic

We eliminate a key roadblock to efficient verification of nonlinear integer arithmetic using CDCL SAT solvers, by showing how to construct short resolution proofs for many properties of the most widely used multiplier circuits. Such short proofs were conjectured not to exist. More precisely, we give n^{O(1)} size regular resolution proofs for arbitrary degree 2 identities on array, diagonal, and Booth multipliers and quasipolynomial- n^{O(\log n)} size proofs for these identities on Wallace tree multipliers.Comment: Expanded and simplified with improved result

Circuit complexity, proof complexity, and polynomial identity testing

We introduce a new algebraic proof system, which has tight connections to (algebraic) circuit complexity. In particular, we show that any super-polynomial lower bound on any Boolean tautology in our proof system implies that the permanent does not have polynomial-size algebraic circuits (VNP is not equal to VP). As a corollary to the proof, we also show that super-polynomial lower bounds on the number of lines in Polynomial Calculus proofs (as opposed to the usual measure of number of monomials) imply the Permanent versus Determinant Conjecture. Note that, prior to our work, there was no proof system for which lower bounds on an arbitrary tautology implied any computational lower bound. Our proof system helps clarify the relationships between previous algebraic proof systems, and begins to shed light on why proof complexity lower bounds for various proof systems have been so much harder than lower bounds on the corresponding circuit classes. In doing so, we highlight the importance of polynomial identity testing (PIT) for understanding proof complexity. More specifically, we introduce certain propositional axioms satisfied by any Boolean circuit computing PIT. We use these PIT axioms to shed light on AC^0[p]-Frege lower bounds, which have been open for nearly 30 years, with no satisfactory explanation as to their apparent difficulty. We show that either: a) Proving super-polynomial lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege implies VNP does not have polynomial-size circuits of depth d - a notoriously open question for d at least 4 - thus explaining the difficulty of lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege, or b) AC^0[p]-Frege cannot efficiently prove the depth d PIT axioms, and hence we have a lower bound on AC^0[p]-Frege. Using the algebraic structure of our proof system, we propose a novel way to extend techniques from algebraic circuit complexity to prove lower bounds in proof complexity