DOCSLIB.ORG

Algorithms for Circuits and Circuits for Algorithms (Invited Paper)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Algorithms for Circuits and Circuits for Algorithms (Invited Paper) Algorithms for Circuits and Circuits for Algorithms (Invited Paper) Ryan Williams Computer Science Department Stanford University Stanford, CA, USA Email: [email protected] Abstract—The title of this paper is meant to highlight an of consequences of such impossibility results, as well as emerging duality between two fundamental topics in algorithms consequences of possessing such interesting methods (in the and complexity theory. hopes of an eventual proof by contradiction). Algorithms for circuits refers to the design of interesting algorithms which can perform non-trivial circuit analysis of Another dictum is that algorithm design and analysis is, some kind, on either a circuit or a Boolean function given as a on the whole, an easier venture than proving lower bounds. truth table. For instance, an algorithm determining whether a Conventional wisdom states that in algorithm design, one given circuit has an input that forces a true output would solve only has to find a single efficient algorithm that will solve the NP-complete Circuit-SAT problem. Such an algorithm is of the problem at hand, but a lower bound must reason about all course unlikely to run in polynomial time, but could possibly be more efficient than exhaustively trying all possible inputs possible efficient algorithms, including bizarrely behaving to the circuit. ones, and argue that none solve the problem at hand. This Circuits for algorithms refers to the modeling of uniform dictum is also reflected in the literature: every year, many in- algorithms with non-uniform circuit families (or proving such teresting algorithms are discovered, analyzed, and published, modeling is impossible). For instance, the NEXP versus P=poly compared to the tiny number of lower bounds proved.1 question asks whether nondeterministic exponential-time algo- Furthermore, there are theoretical reasons for believing that rithms can be simulated using non-uniform circuit families of polynomial size. It is widely believed that the answer is no, lower bounds are hard to prove. The most compelling of however the present mathematical tools available are still too these are the three “barriers” of Relativization [BGS75], crude to prove this kind of separation. Natural Proofs [RR97], and Algebrization [AW09]. These This paper surveys these two generic subjects, the ways in “no-go” theorems demonstrate that the known lower bound which they arise, and connections that have been developed proof methods are simply too coarse to prove even weak between them, focusing on the connections between non- lower bounds, much weaker than P 6= NP. Subsequently, trivial circuit-analysis algorithms and proofs of circuit size lower bounds. To give one example, if there is a nontrivial complexity theory has been clouded with great pessimism algorithm (running slightly faster than exhaustive search) that about resolving some of its central open problems. can determine if a given circuit computes a constant function, While the problems of algorithm design and proving then it can be concluded that NEXP is not contained in P=poly. lower bounds may arise from looking at opposing tasks, Informally, this connection can be interpreted as saying “some good algorithms for circuits imply there are no good circuits the two tasks have deep similarities when viewed in the for some algorithms.” appropriate way.2 This survey will concentrate on some of the most counterintuitive similarities: from the design of Keywords-satisfiability; derandomization; exact algorithms; learning; circuit complexity; parameterized algorithms certain algorithms (the supposedly “easier” task), one can derive new lower bounds (the supposedly “harder” task). I. INTRODUCTION That is, there are senses in which algorithm design is at least as hard as proving lower bounds. Such implications Budding theoretical computer scientists are generally present an excellent mathematical “arbitrage” opportunity taught several dictums at an early age. One such dictum for complexity theorists, to potentially prove hard lower is that the algorithm designers and the complexity theorists bounds via supposedly easier algorithm design. (Moreover, (whoever they may be) are charged with opposing tasks. The this approach has recently led to new lower bounds.) algorithm designer discovers interesting methods for solving Some connections take the following form. Suppose there certain problems; along the way, she may also propose new notions of what is interesting, to better understand the 1Of course, there can be other reasons for this disparity, such as funding. scope and power of algorithms. The complexity theorist is 2Similarities can already be found in the proof(s) that the Halting Prob- supposed to prove lower bounds, showing that sufficiently lem is undecidable: the workhorse behind such results is the construction of a universal Turing machine that can run arbitrary Turing machine code interesting methods for solving certain problems do not given as input. This is a canonical example of a positive algorithmic result exist. Barring that, he develops a structural framework applied to prove an impossibility result. is a Turing machine T which receives on its input tape a circuit families. Section IV surveys existing knowledge of description of a finite logical circuit C, and on all “struc- circuit-analysis algorithms, which we call algorithms for tured” circuits C, T is guaranteed to perform some nontrivial circuits. Section V discusses known connections between analysis of the function computed by C. (For example, T the two, and prospects for future progress. Section VI briefly could determine whether C outputs the same value on all concludes. possible inputs to C, provided C is a “shallow” circuit with a T few layers of gates.) Such a can then be used to construct II. PRELIMINARIES a function f that is computable “somewhat efficiently” by a Turing machine but is not computable efficiently by non- We assume familiarity with machine-based complexity uniform circuit families possessing that structure. That is, an theory [AB09] but not necessarily circuit complexity. interesting circuit-analysis algorithm can be applied to prove Circuit complexity is concerned with how to construct an interesting circuit complexity lower bound. Boolean functions out of “simpler” functions, such as those It is worth emphasizing the quantifiers in the above of the form g : f0; 1g2 ! f0; 1g. Examples of Boolean implication schema: functions include: The existence of an algorithm T that can analyze all structured circuits C, implies the existence of a function f • ORk(x1; : : : ; xk), ANDk(x1; : : : ; xk), with their usual that is not computable by all structured circuit families. logical meanings, • MODm (x ; : : : ; x ) for a fixed integer m > 1, which That is, there are situations in which designing algorithms k 1 k outputs 1 if and only if P x is divisible by m. for some problem X can be translated into “lower bound i i • MAJ (x ; : : : ; x ) = 1 if and only if P x ≥ dk=2e. design” for another problem Y . The key is that there k 1 k i i are two computational models under consideration here: Circuit complexity: A basis set B is a set of Boolean the algorithm model or the usual “Turing” style model of functions. Two popular choices for B are B2, the set of all 2 algorithms, and the circuit model or the non-uniform circuit functions g : f0; 1g ! f0; 1g, and U2, the set B2 without family model. Careful design of algorithms for analyzing MOD2 and the negation of MOD2. A Boolean circuit of size given instances of the circuit model are used to construct s with n inputs x1; : : : ; xn over basis B is a sequence of n+s n functions computable (in one sense) in the algorithm model functions C = (f1; : : : ; fn+s), with fi : f0; 1g ! f0; 1g that are uncomputable (in another sense) in the circuit model. for all i, such that: There is a kind of duality lurking beneath which is not well- • i = 1; : : : ; n f (x ; : : : ; x ) = x understood. for all , i 1 n i, • for all j = n + 1; : : : ; n + s, there is a func- This article will survey two generic topics in algorithms tion g : f0; 1gk ! f0; 1g from B and in- and complexity, and connections between them: dices i1; : : : ; ik < j such that fj(x1; : : : ; xn) = • Circuits for algorithms refers to the modeling of pow- g(fi1 (x1; : : : ; xn); : : : ; fik (x1; : : : ; xn)). erful uniform algorithms with non-uniform circuit fam- ilies (or proving that such modeling is impossible). The fi are called the gates of the circuit; f1; : : : ; fn are For instance, the EXP versus P=poly question asks the input gates, fn+1; : : : ; fn+s−1 are the internal gates, whether exponential-time algorithms can be simulated and fn+s is the output gate. The circuit C can naturally be using non-uniform circuit families of polynomial size. thought of as a function as well: on an input string x = n • Algorithms for circuits refers to designing interesting (x1; : : : ; xn) 2 f0; 1g , C(x) denotes fn+s(x). algorithms which can perform some interesting circuit Thinking of the connections between the gates as a analysis. The input may be a circuit or it may be directed acyclic graph in the natural way, with the input gates a Boolean function (given as a truth table), and the as n source nodes 1; : : : ; n, and the jth gate with indices algorithm checks whether the circuit (or truth table) sat- i1; : : : ; ik < j as a node j with incoming arcs from nodes isfies a simple property related to the circuit complexity i1; : : : ; ik, the depth of C is the longest path from an input of the underlying function. To illustrate, an algorithm gate to the output gate. As a convention, we will not count determining if a given circuit has an input that forces gates with fan-in 1 in the depth measure. That is, gates of a true output solves the NP-complete Circuit-SAT the form g(x) = x or g(x) = :x are not counted towards problem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Uniformity Within NC
    On Uniformity Within NC David A Mix Barrington Neil Immerman HowardStraubing University of Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Boston Col lege Journal of Computer and System Science Abstract In order to study circuit complexity classes within NC in a uniform setting we need a uniformity condition which is more restrictive than those in common use Twosuch conditions stricter than NC uniformity RuCo have app eared in recent research Immermans families of circuits dened by rstorder formulas ImaImb and a unifor mity corresp onding to Buss deterministic logtime reductions Bu We show that these two notions are equivalent leading to a natural notion of uniformity for lowlevel circuit complexity classes Weshow that recent results on the structure of NC Ba still hold true in this very uniform setting Finallyweinvestigate a parallel notion of uniformity still more restrictive based on the regular languages Here we givecharacterizations of sub classes of the regular languages based on their logical expressibility extending recentwork of Straubing Therien and Thomas STT A preliminary version of this work app eared as BIS Intro duction Circuit Complexity Computer scientists have long tried to classify problems dened as Bo olean predicates or functions by the size or depth of Bo olean circuits needed to solve them This eort has Former name David A Barrington Supp orted by NSF grant CCR Mailing address Dept of Computer and Information Science U of Mass Amherst MA USA Supp orted by NSF grants DCR and CCR Mailing address Dept of
    [Show full text]
  • Week 1: an Overview of Circuit Complexity 1 Welcome 2
    Topics in Circuit Complexity (CS354, Fall’11) Week 1: An Overview of Circuit Complexity Lecture Notes for 9/27 and 9/29 Ryan Williams 1 Welcome The area of circuit complexity has a long history, starting in the 1940’s. It is full of open problems and frontiers that seem insurmountable, yet the literature on circuit complexity is fairly large. There is much that we do know, although it is scattered across several textbooks and academic papers. I think now is a good time to look again at circuit complexity with fresh eyes, and try to see what can be done. 2 Preliminaries An n-bit Boolean function has domain f0; 1gn and co-domain f0; 1g. At a high level, the basic question asked in circuit complexity is: given a collection of “simple functions” and a target Boolean function f, how efficiently can f be computed (on all inputs) using the simple functions? Of course, efficiency can be measured in many ways. The most natural measure is that of the “size” of computation: how many copies of these simple functions are necessary to compute f? Let B be a set of Boolean functions, which we call a basis set. The fan-in of a function g 2 B is the number of inputs that g takes. (Typical choices are fan-in 2, or unbounded fan-in, meaning that g can take any number of inputs.) We define a circuit C with n inputs and size s over a basis B, as follows. C consists of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of s + n + 2 nodes, with n sources and one sink (the sth node in some fixed topological order on the nodes).
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Computational Complexity
    The Computational Complexity Column by Lance FORTNOW NEC Laboratories America 4 Independence Way, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA [email protected] http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/fortnow/beatcs Every third year the Conference on Computational Complexity is held in Europe and this summer the University of Aarhus (Denmark) will host the meeting July 7-10. More details at the conference web page http://www.computationalcomplexity.org This month we present a historical view of computational complexity written by Steve Homer and myself. This is a preliminary version of a chapter to be included in an upcoming North-Holland Handbook of the History of Mathematical Logic edited by Dirk van Dalen, John Dawson and Aki Kanamori. A Short History of Computational Complexity Lance Fortnow1 Steve Homer2 NEC Research Institute Computer Science Department 4 Independence Way Boston University Princeton, NJ 08540 111 Cummington Street Boston, MA 02215 1 Introduction It all started with a machine. In 1936, Turing developed his theoretical com- putational model. He based his model on how he perceived mathematicians think. As digital computers were developed in the 40's and 50's, the Turing machine proved itself as the right theoretical model for computation. Quickly though we discovered that the basic Turing machine model fails to account for the amount of time or memory needed by a computer, a critical issue today but even more so in those early days of computing. The key idea to measure time and space as a function of the length of the input came in the early 1960's by Hartmanis and Stearns.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiparty Communication Complexity and Threshold Circuit Size of AC^0
    2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Multiparty Communication Complexity and Threshold Circuit Size of AC0 Paul Beame∗ Dang-Trinh Huynh-Ngoc∗y Computer Science and Engineering Computer Science and Engineering University of Washington University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-2350 Seattle, WA 98195-2350 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— We prove an nΩ(1)=4k lower bound on the random- that the Generalized Inner Product function in ACC0 requires ized k-party communication complexity of depth 4 AC0 functions k-party NOF communication complexity Ω(n=4k) which is in the number-on-forehead (NOF) model for up to Θ(log n) polynomial in n for k up to Θ(log n). players. These are the first non-trivial lower bounds for general 0 NOF multiparty communication complexity for any AC0 function However, for AC functions much less has been known. for !(log log n) players. For non-constant k the bounds are larger For the communication complexity of the set disjointness than all previous lower bounds for any AC0 function even for function with k players (which is in AC0) there are lower simultaneous communication complexity. bounds of the form Ω(n1=(k−1)=(k−1)) in the simultaneous Our lower bounds imply the first superpolynomial lower bounds NOF [24], [5] and nΩ(1=k)=kO(k) in the one-way NOF for the simulation of AC0 by MAJ ◦ SYMM ◦ AND circuits, showing that the well-known quasipolynomial simulations of AC0 model [26]. These are sub-polynomial lower bounds for all by such circuits are qualitatively optimal, even for formulas of non-constant values of k and, at best, polylogarithmic when small constant depth.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 13: Circuit Complexity 1 Binary Addition
    CS 810: Introduction to Complexity Theory 3/4/2003 Lecture 13: Circuit Complexity Instructor: Jin-Yi Cai Scribe: David Koop, Martin Hock For the next few lectures, we will deal with circuit complexity. We will concentrate on small depth circuits. These capture parallel computation. Our main goal will be proving circuit lower bounds. These lower bounds show what cannot be computed by small depth circuits. To gain appreciation for these lower bound results, it is essential to first learn about what can be done by these circuits. In next two lectures, we will exhibit the computational power of these circuits. We start with one of the simplest computations: integer addition. 1 Binary Addition Given two binary numbers, a = a1a2 : : : an−1an and b = b1b2 : : : bn−1bn, we can add the two using the elementary school method { adding each column and carrying to the next. In other words, r = a + b, an an−1 : : : a1 a0 + bn bn−1 : : : b1 b0 rn+1 rn rn−1 : : : r1 r0 can be accomplished by first computing r0 = a0 ⊕ b0 (⊕ is exclusive or) and computing a carry bit, c1 = a0 ^ b0. Now, we can compute r1 = a1 ⊕ b1 ⊕ c1 and c2 = (c1 ^ (a1 _ b1)) _ (a1 ^ b1), and in general we have rk = ak ⊕ bk ⊕ ck ck = (ck−1 ^ (ak _ bk)) _ (ak ^ bk) Certainly, the above operation can be done in polynomial time. The main question is, can we do it in parallel faster? The computation expressed above is sequential. Before computing rk, one needs to compute all the previous output bits.
    [Show full text]
  • Parameterized Circuit Complexity and the W Hierarchy
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Theoretical Computer Science ELSEVIER Theoretical Computer Science 191 (1998) 97-115 Parameterized circuit complexity and the W hierarchy Rodney G. Downey a, Michael R. Fellows b,*, Kenneth W. Regan’ a Department of Mathematics, Victoria University, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand b Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3P6 ‘Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, 226 Bell Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260-2000 USA Received June 1995; revised October 1996 Communicated by M. Crochemore Abstract A parameterized problem (L,k) belongs to W[t] if there exists k’ computed from k such that (L, k) reduces to the weight-k’ satisfiability problem for weft-t circuits. We relate the fundamental question of whether the w[t] hierarchy is proper to parameterized problems for constant-depth circuits. We define classes G[t] as the analogues of AC0 depth-t for parameterized problems, and N[t] by weight-k’ existential quantification on G[t], by analogy with NP = 3 . P. We prove that for each t, W[t] equals the closure under fixed-parameter reductions of N[t]. Then we prove, using Sipser’s results on the AC0 depth-t hierarchy, that both the G[t] and the N[t] hierarchies are proper. If this separation holds up under parameterized reductions, then the kF’[t] hierarchy is proper. We also investigate the hierarchy H[t] defined by alternating quantification over G[t].
    [Show full text]
  • Time, Hardware, and Uniformity
    This is page Printer Opaque this Time Hardware and Uniformity David Mix Barrington Neil Immerman ABSTRACT We describ e three orthogonal complexity measures parallel time amount of hardware and degree of nonuniformity which together parametrize most complexity classes Weshow that the descriptive com plexity framework neatly captures these measures using three parameters quantier depth number of variables and typ e of numeric predicates re sp ectively A fairly simple picture arises in which the basic questions in complexity theory solved and unsolved can b e understo o d as ques tions ab out tradeos among these three dimensions Intro duction An initial presentation of complexity theory usually makes the implicit as sumption that problems and hence complexity classes are linearly ordered by diculty In the Chomsky Hierarchyeach new typ e of automaton can decide more languages and the Time Hierarchy Theorem tells us that adding more time allowsaTuring machine to decide more languages In deed the word complexity is often used eg in the study of algorithms to mean worstcase Turing machine running time under which problems are linearly ordered Those of us who study structural complexityknow that the situation is actually more complicated For one thing if wewant to mo del parallel com putation we need to distinguish b etween algorithms whichtakethesame amountofwork ie sequential time wecarehowmany pro cesses are op erating in parallel and howmuch parallel time is taken These two dimen sions of complexity are identiable in all the usual mo
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Complexity Contents 1 Announcements 2 Relation to Other
    CS221: Computational Complexity Prof. Salil Vadhan Lecture 19: Circuit Complexity 11/6 Scribe: Chris Crick Contents 1 Announcements ² Problem Set 3, problem 2: You may use ², the regular expression for the empty string. ² PS3 due tomorrow. ² Be aware that you do not necessarily have to solve all of the problems on the problem set — the point is to get you to think about them. ² Reading: Papadimitriou x4.3, x11.4 2 Relation to other complexity measures Definition: The circuit complexity or circuit size of a function f : f0; 1gn ! f0; 1g is the number of gates in the smallest boolean circuit that computes f. Circuit complexity depends our choice of a universal basis, but only up to a constant. We can therefore use any such basis to represent our circuit. Because it’s familiar and convenient, then, we will usually use AND, OR and NOT, though sometimes the set of all boolean functions of two inputs and one output is more natural. Example: To provide a sense for how one programs with circuits, we will examine the thresh- 1 if at least two x s are 1 old function Th (x ; ¢ ¢ ¢ ; x ) = f i g. Figure 1 shows a simple circuit to 2 1 n 0 otherwise compute this function. In this circuit, li = 1 if at least one of (x1; : : : ; xi) = 1. ri becomes 1 once two xis equal 1. li is just xi _ li¡1, and ri is ri¡1 _ (li¡1 ^ xi). The output node is rn. Conventions for counting circuit gates vary a little – for example, some people count the inputs in the total, while others don’t.
    [Show full text]
  • Circuit Complexity and Computational Complexity
    Circuit Complexity and Computational Complexity Lecture Notes for Math 267AB University of California, San Diego January{June 1992 Instructor: Sam Buss Notes by: Frank Baeuerle Sam Buss Bob Carragher Matt Clegg Goran Gogi¶c Elias Koutsoupias John Lillis Dave Robinson Jinghui Yang 1 These lecture notes were written for a topics course in the Mathematics Department at the University of California, San Diego during the winter and spring quarters of 1992. Each student wrote lecture notes for between two and ¯ve one and one half hour lectures. I'd like to thank the students for a superb job of writing up lecture notes. January 9-14. Bob Carragher's notes on Introduction to circuit complexity. Theorems of Shannon and Lupanov giving upper and lower bounds of circuit complexity of almost all Boolean functions. January 14-21. Matt Clegg's notes on Spira's theorem relating depth and formula size Krapchenko's lower bound on formula size over AND/OR/NOT January 23-28. Frank Baeuerle's notes on Neciporuk's theorem Simulation of time bounded TM's by circuits January 30 - February 4. John Lillis's notes on NC/AC hierarchy Circuit value problem Depth restricted circuits for space bounded Turing machines Addition is in NC1. February 6-13. Goran Gogi¶c's notes on Circuits for parallel pre¯x vector addition and for symmetric functions. February 18-20. Dave Robinson's notes on Schnorr's 2n-3 lower bound on circuit size Blum's 3n-o(n) lower bound on circuit size February 25-27. Jinghui Yang's notes on Subbotovskaya's theorem Andreev's n2:5 lower bound on formula size with AND/OR/NOT.
    [Show full text]
  • BQP and the Polynomial Hierarchy∗
    BQP and the Polynomial Hierarchy∗ Scott Aaronson† MIT ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION The relationship between BQP and PH has been an open A central task of quantum computing theory is to un- problem since the earliest days of quantum computing. We derstand how BQP—Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial- present evidence that quantum computers can solve prob- Time, the class of all problems feasible for a quantum computer— lems outside the entire polynomial hierarchy, by relating this fits in with classical complexity classes. In their original question to topics in circuit complexity, pseudorandomness, 1993 paper defining BQP, Bernstein and Vazirani [9] showed #P 1 and Fourier analysis. that BPP BQP P . Informally, this says that quan- ⊆ ⊆ First, we show that there exists an oracle relation problem tum computers are at least as fast as classical probabilistic (i.e., a problem with many valid outputs) that is solvable in computers and no more than exponentially faster (indeed, BQP, but not in PH. This also yields a non-oracle relation they can be simulated using an oracle for counting). Bern- problem that is solvable in quantum logarithmic time, but stein and Vazirani also gave evidence that BPP = BQP, 6 not in AC0. by exhibiting an oracle problem called Recursive Fourier Ω(log n) Second, we show that an oracle decision problem separat- Sampling that requires n queries on a classical com- ing BQP from PH would follow from the Generalized Linial- puter but only n queries on a quantum computer. The Nisan Conjecture, which we formulate here and which is evidence for the power of quantum computers became dra- likely of independent interest.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Circuit Complexity
    CS 6743 Lecture 15 1 Fall 2007 1 Circuit Complexity 1.1 Definitions A Boolean circuit C on n inputs x1, . , xn is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with n nodes of in-degree 0 (the inputs x1, . , xn), one node of out-degree 0 (the output), and every node of the graph except the input nodes is labeled by AND, OR, or NOT; it has in-degree 2 (for AND and OR), or 1 (for NOT). The Boolean circuit C computes a Boolean function f(x1, . , xn) in the obvious way: the value of the function is equal to the value of the output gate of the circuit when the input gates are assigned the values x1, . , xn. The size of a Boolean circuit C, denoted |C|, is defined to be the total number of nodes (gates) in the graph representation of C. The depth of a Boolean circuit C is defined as the length of a longest path (from an input gate to the output gate) in the graph representation of the circuit C. A Boolean formula is a Boolean circuit whose graph representation is a tree. Given a family of Boolean functions f = {fn}n≥0, where fn depends on n variables, we are interested in the sizes of smallest Boolean circuits Cn computing fn. Let s(n) be a function such that |Cn| ≤ s(n), for all n. Then we say that the Boolean function family f is computable by Boolean circuits of size s(n). If s(n) is a polynomial, then we say that f is computable by polysize circuits.
    [Show full text]
  • On AC0[⊕] and Variants of the Majority Function
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 133 (2019) More on AC0[⊕] and Variants of the Majority Function Nutan Limaye∗ Srikanth Srinivasan y Utkarsh Tripathi z Abstract In this paper we prove two results about AC0[⊕] circuits. 1=d2 • We show that for d(N) = o(plog N= log log N) and N ≤ s(N) ≤ 2dN there is an N explicit family of functions ffN : f0; 1g ! f0; 1gg such that 0 { fN has uniform AC formulas of depth d and size at most s; 0 " { fN does not have AC [⊕] formulas of depth d and size s , where " is a fixed absolute constant. This gives a quantitative improvement on the recent result of Limaye, Srinivasan, Sreenivasaiah, Tripathi, and Venkitesh, (STOC, 2019), which proved a similar Fixed- Ω(d) Depth Size-Hierarchy theorem but for d log log N and s exp(N 1=2 ). As in the previous result, we use the Coin Problem to prove our hierarchy theorem. Our main technical result is the construction of uniform size-optimal formulas for solving O(d) the coin problem with improved sample complexity (1/δ)d+4 (down from (1/δ)2 in the previous result). • In our second result, we show that randomness buys depth in the AC0[⊕] setting. Formally, we show that for any fixed constant d ≥ 2, there is a family of Boolean functions that has polynomial-sized randomized uniform AC0 circuits of depth d but no polynomial-sized (deterministic) AC0[⊕] circuits of depth d. Previously Viola (Computational Complexity, 2014) showed that an increase in depth (by at least 2) is essential to avoid superpolynomial blow-up while derandomizing randomized AC0 circuits.
    [Show full text]