Characterization and Lower Bounds for Branching Program Size using Projective Dimension

We study projective dimension, a graph parameter (denoted by pd$(G)$ for a graph $G$), introduced by (Pudl\'ak, R\"odl 1992), who showed that proving lower bounds for pd$(G_f)$ for bipartite graphs $G_f$ associated with a Boolean function $f$ imply size lower bounds for branching programs computing $f$. Despite several attempts (Pudl\'ak, R\"odl 1992 ; Babai, R\'{o}nyai, Ganapathy 2000), proving super-linear lower bounds for projective dimension of explicit families of graphs has remained elusive. We show that there exist a Boolean function $f$ (on $n$ bits) for which the gap between the projective dimension and size of the optimal branching program computing $f$ (denoted by bpsize$(f)$), is $2^{\Omega(n)}$. Motivated by the argument in (Pudl\'ak, R\"odl 1992), we define two variants of projective dimension - projective dimension with intersection dimension 1 (denoted by upd$(G)$) and bitwise decomposable projective dimension (denoted by bitpdim$(G)$). As our main result, we show that there is an explicit family of graphs on $N = 2^n$ vertices such that the projective dimension is $O(\sqrt{n})$, the projective dimension with intersection dimension $1$ is $\Omega(n)$ and the bitwise decomposable projective dimension is $\Omega(\frac{n^{1.5}}{\log n})$. We also show that there exist a Boolean function $f$ (on $n$ bits) for which the gap between upd$(G_f)$ and bpsize$(f)$ is $2^{\Omega(n)}$. In contrast, we also show that the bitwise decomposable projective dimension characterizes size of the branching program up to a polynomial factor. That is, there exists a constant $c>0$ and for any function $f$, $\textrm{bitpdim}(G_f)/6 \le \textrm{bpsize}(f) \le (\textrm{bitpdim}(G_f))^c$. We also study two other variants of projective dimension and show that they are exactly equal to well-studied graph parameters - bipartite clique cover number and bipartite partition number respectively.Comment: 24 pages, 3 figure

On Disperser/Lifting Properties of the Index and Inner-Product Functions

Query-to-communication lifting theorems, which connect the query complexity of a Boolean function to the communication complexity of an associated "lifted" function obtained by composing the function with many copies of another function known as a gadget, have been instrumental in resolving many open questions in computational complexity. A number of important complexity questions could be resolved if we could make substantial improvements in the input size required for lifting with the Index function, which is a universal gadget for lifting, from its current near-linear size down to polylogarithmic in the number of inputs N of the original function or, ideally, constant. The near-linear size bound was recently shown by Lovett, Meka, Mertz, Pitassi and Zhang [Shachar Lovett et al., 2022] using a recent breakthrough improvement on the Sunflower Lemma to show that a certain graph associated with an Index function of that size is a disperser. They also stated a conjecture about the Index function that is essential for further improvements in the size required for lifting with Index using current techniques. In this paper we prove the following; - The conjecture of Lovett et al. is false when the size of the Index gadget is less than logarithmic in N. - The same limitation applies to the Inner-Product function. More precisely, the Inner-Product function, which is known to satisfy the disperser property at size O(log N), also does not have this property when its size is less than log N. - Notwithstanding the above, we prove a lifting theorem that applies to Index gadgets of any size at least 4 and yields lower bounds for a restricted class of communication protocols in which one of the players is limited to sending parities of its inputs. - Using a modification of the same idea with improved lifting parameters we derive a strong lifting theorem from decision tree size to parity decision tree size. We use this, in turn, to derive a general lifting theorem in proof complexity from tree-resolution size to tree-like Res(?) refutation size, which yields many new exponential lower bounds on such proofs

Algorithms and lower bounds for de Morgan formulas of low-communication leaf gates

The class $FORMULA[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ consists of Boolean functions computable by size-$s$ de Morgan formulas whose leaves are any Boolean functions from a class $\mathcal{G}$. We give lower bounds and (SAT, Learning, and PRG) algorithms for $FORMULA[n^{1.99}]\circ \mathcal{G}$, for classes $\mathcal{G}$ of functions with low communication complexity. Let $R^{(k)}(\mathcal{G})$ be the maximum $k$-party NOF randomized communication complexity of $\mathcal{G}$. We show: (1) The Generalized Inner Product function $GIP^k_n$ cannot be computed in $FORMULA[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$ on more than $1/2+\varepsilon$ fraction of inputs for $$s = o \! \left ( \frac{n^2}{ \left(k \cdot 4^k \cdot {R}^{(k)}(\mathcal{G}) \cdot \log (n/\varepsilon) \cdot \log(1/\varepsilon) \right)^{2}} \right).$$ As a corollary, we get an average-case lower bound for $GIP^k_n$ against $FORMULA[n^{1.99}]\circ PTF^{k-1}$. (2) There is a PRG of seed length $n/2 + O\left(\sqrt{s} \cdot R^{(2)}(\mathcal{G}) \cdot\log(s/\varepsilon) \cdot \log (1/\varepsilon) \right)$ that $\varepsilon$-fools $FORMULA[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$. For $FORMULA[s] \circ LTF$, we get the better seed length $O\left(n^{1/2}\cdot s^{1/4}\cdot \log(n)\cdot \log(n/\varepsilon)\right)$. This gives the first non-trivial PRG (with seed length $o(n)$) for intersections of $n$ half-spaces in the regime where $\varepsilon \leq 1/n$. (3) There is a randomized $2^{n-t}$-time $\#$SAT algorithm for $FORMULA[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$, where $$t=\Omega\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot R^{(2)}(\mathcal{G})}\right)^{1/2}.$$ In particular, this implies a nontrivial #SAT algorithm for $FORMULA[n^{1.99}]\circ LTF$. (4) The Minimum Circuit Size Problem is not in $FORMULA[n^{1.99}]\circ XOR$. On the algorithmic side, we show that $FORMULA[n^{1.99}] \circ XOR$ can be PAC-learned in time $2^{O(n/\log n)}$