447 research outputs found
Lower Bounds for Monotone Counting Circuits
A {+,x}-circuit counts a given multivariate polynomial f, if its values on
0-1 inputs are the same as those of f; on other inputs the circuit may output
arbitrary values. Such a circuit counts the number of monomials of f evaluated
to 1 by a given 0-1 input vector (with multiplicities given by their
coefficients). A circuit decides if it has the same 0-1 roots as f. We
first show that some multilinear polynomials can be exponentially easier to
count than to compute them, and can be exponentially easier to decide than to
count them. Then we give general lower bounds on the size of counting circuits.Comment: 20 page
Circuits with arbitrary gates for random operators
We consider boolean circuits computing n-operators f:{0,1}^n --> {0,1}^n. As
gates we allow arbitrary boolean functions; neither fanin nor fanout of gates
is restricted. An operator is linear if it computes n linear forms, that is,
computes a matrix-vector product y=Ax over GF(2). We prove the existence of
n-operators requiring about n^2 wires in any circuit, and linear n-operators
requiring about n^2/\log n wires in depth-2 circuits, if either all output
gates or all gates on the middle layer are linear.Comment: 7 page
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
Connectivity, which asks whether two specified nodes in a graph of size
are connected by a path of length at most . This problem is solvable
(by the recursive doubling technique) on {\bf circuits} of depth
and size . In contrast, we show that solving this problem on {\bf
formulas} of depth requires size for all . As corollaries:
(i) It follows that polynomial-size circuits for Distance Connectivity
require depth for all . This matches the
upper bound from recursive doubling and improves a previous lower bound of Beame, Pitassi and Impagliazzo [BIP98].
(ii) We get a tight lower bound of on the size required to
simulate size- depth- circuits by depth- formulas for all and . No lower bound better than
was previously known for any .
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 via the operations of union and relational
join, subject to certain density constraints. Half of our proof shows that
bounded-depth formulas solving Distance Connectivity imply upper bounds
on pathset complexity. The other half is a combinatorial lower bound on pathset
complexity
Graphs and Circuits: Some Further Remarks
We consider the power of single level circuits in the context of
graph complexity. We first prove that the single level conjecture
fails for fanin- circuits over the basis .
This shows that the (surpisingly tight) phenomenon, established by
Mirwald and Schnorr (1992) for quadratic functions, has no analogon
for graphs. We then show that the single level conjecture fails for
unbounded fanin circuits over . This partially
answers the question of Pudl\u27ak, R"odl and Savick\u27y (1986). We
also prove that in a restricted version of the
hierarhy of communication complexity classes introduced by Babai,
Frankl and Simon (1986). Further, we show that even depth-
circuits are surprisingly powerful: every bipartite
graph of maximum degree can be represented by a monotone
CNF with clauses. We also discuss a relation
between graphs and -circuits
Investor Protection : Segregation of Assets
The article is devoted to the contemporary problems of the ownership rights on intermediated securities and investor protection. Authors provide brief introduction to the major aspects of the Latvian securities law, then they study peculiarities of US approach to the ownership rights on intermediated securities as well US techniques of investor protection in the context of segregation and separation of assets of investors as well as briefly review the insolvency regimes and return of the financial assets to the investors, customers of insolvent US regulated firms. In conclusion authors provide brief comparative summarizing of Latvian and US approaches. Objectives: The study aims at continuing development of the securities law theory, while its task is to characterise the problematic of investor protection especially in insolvency proceedings on example of US as well as to discuss some peculiarities ownership rights on intermediated securities from the point of view of US law and practice. Methods/Approach Scientific research methods - both comparative and analytical - is used in the process of drawing up of this article. Results: Authors come to conclusion that US investor protection system is more complex than Latvian, it uses the separation and segregation approaches, while Latvian system only segregation approach. Both systems do not excluding situations of shortfall in customer assets. Both systems recognize the pro-rata distribution of damages, but US system recognises various pro-rata approaches to the distribution of damages (from the defined amount of assets; from all the assets; from all the assets belonging to a specific category of customers), while Latvian law stays silent regarding this topic. Authors believe that modernisation of the law is required for the better protection of the customers in case of insolvency of investment service providers and obtaining of the greater certainty of the legal outcomes. Author suggest should to determine the prohibition to meet the claims of one class of assets at the expense of another class of assets during insolvency proceedings of investment service providers in case of shortfall in assetspublishersversionPeer reviewe
- …