Arxiv:2008.06801V4 [Cs.CC] 14 May 2021 Ftecnnrm Hsnwicrainepot H Elkno Well the Exploits Incarnation New This Abi Conundrum

Home , Boolean function

arXiv:2008.06801v4 [cs.CC] 14 May 2021 ftecnnrm hsnwicrainepot h elkno well the exploits incarnation new This abi conundrum. circumv We our the lengths. hinders of input varying argument across pigeonhole functions Boolean the Namely, deficiency. size bevto htteeaeruhysekn esthan less speaking roughly are there that observation oe one nsz letcueyby crudely albeit size in bounded lower o h eMra ola oml opeiyo oefamilia some of complexity c formula this Boolean from Morgan devise De We form the Boolean measure. for Morgan complexity De Kolomogorov the arithm the that 3 show j of we depth results particular strong In These that argues bounds. bounds. therefore lower work circuits present o The arithmetic investigations 3 reduce le depth Hya79] machine circui of GKKS16, and Boolean Raz13, physics of AV08, in aspects i [VS81, play to of they complexity importance circuit role arithmetic central The the to SY10]. by reader [CKW11, forced the algori complexity refer We deterministic arithmetic derivatives. known in partial Corn of fastest recently, method the More a of using [BS83]. runtime the Strassen match and Baur by complexity ain o h ola ler.Ti ler evsa h fi math the of as branch serves the [GIM algebra initiated recognition This also Boole algebra. George Boolean terestingly, the for dations ntgtdteueo ieeta prtr ocntutin construct to Cayl operators Arthur Cayley’s differential Boole, as of George b of use can work the origin the instigated Their to notably old. pillar Most very second is theory. the theory intr invariant are were in machines Turing machines operators Turing computation. of We machines. model functio Red27]. Turing Pol37, Boolean of Pol40, of [Sha49, incarnations analysis Redfield and the Pólya in Shannon, consequen symmetries emphasizes of theory Invariant importance Boole. by pioneered ealte“ede nahytc”cnnrm h conundrum The conundrum. haystack” a in “needles the Recall naeohmkn oktte A netgto fteLw o Laws the of Investigation “An titled book epoch-making a In s mn the among NPRILDFEETA NOIG FBOENFUNCTIONS BOOLEAN OF ENCODINGS DIFFERENTIAL PARTIAL ON Ω rcs.I opeiyter,dffrniloeaoswere operators differential theory, complexity In process. + 2 9 M1,Ar6 r2]ta ihitrlyrltsthese relates interplay rich a that Gro20] Aar16, GMQ16, 19, (2 n ) osbeBoenfntoson functions Boolean possible 1. ata ifrnilEncodings. Differential Partial O 2 n n notntl,ti atclricrainsffr rma from suffers incarnation particular this Unfortunately, . DNHK GNANG K. EDINAH n s 3 btbnr nu tig.Cneunl otcrut are circuits most Consequently strings. input binary -bit 1 s opeiy otntl,rcn et euto results reduction depth recent Fortunately, complexity. t ainso ru cin.Tefaeoki loknown also is framework The actions. group of variants ola icis(xrse nteD ognbss of basis) Morgan De the in (expressed circuits Boolean n hsdabc ycnieigadffrn incarnation different a considering by drawback this ent mtc nw sivratter Wl8.Teei a is There [Wol08]. theory invariant as known ematics rcdbc otewr ferypoer finvariant of pioneers early of work the to back traced e xeln eetsreso ata ieeta methods differential partial on surveys recent excellent e hc tmfo ymtiso akteef The thereof. lack or symmetries from stem which ces siyorepai nlwdphaihei circuits. arithmetic depth low on emphasis our ustify h o eetn ugah fbuddpath-width bounded of subgraphs detecting for thm tccrut oe onsyedBoencrutlower circuit Boolean yield bounds lower circuits etic swswl nw opoer ftefil,sc as such field, the of pioneers to known well was ns dcdb lnTrn Tr6 samathematical a as [Tur36] Turing Alan by oduced ftecmuigrvlto.Teueo differential of use The revolution. computing the of s ftoplaso h optn eouin In- revolution. computing the of pillars two of rst iyt oe on h ieo pcfi aiisof families specific of size the bound lower to lity rig h rsn okfral is set of aspects ties, formally work present The arning. ola functions. Boolean r rtmtccrutlwrbud oinvestigations to bounds lower circuit arithmetic f neto e o-rva pe n oe bounds lower and upper non-trivial new onnection yadJmsJsp yvse Cy9 y5]who Syl52] [Cay89, Sylvester Joseph James and ey lu rn n ei rt B2]wr beto able were [BP20] Pratt Kevin and Brand elius nagbaccrepnec nrdcdb Boole by introduced correspondence algebraic wn netgt ntepeetwr,prildifferential partial work, present the in investigate l opeiyuprbud nagbacvariants algebraic an upper-bounds complexity ula vsiaigprildffrniloeaosi rein- is operators differential partial nvestigating huh” ereBoe[o5]li h foun- the laid [Boo54] Boole George Thought”, f rnltsmteaial Sa9,it the into [Sha49], mathematically translates netgtdi h otx farithmetic of context the in investigated emnl eaaebace both branches separate seemingly crippling ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 2

[Boo54].

True 1, →   False 0,  →    (1.1)  x [i] 1 x [i] ,  ¬ → −   x [i] x [j] x [i]+ x [j] x [i] x [j] ,  ∨ → − ·    x [i] x [j] x [i] x [j] .   ∧ → ·  and 

1 True, →   0 False,  →    (1.2)  x [i] x [j] x [i] x [j] ,  · → ∧   1 x [i] x [i] ,  − → ¬    (x [i]+ x [j]) mod 2 (x [i] x [j]) (x [i] x [j]) .   → ∨ ∧ ¬ ∧  Polynomials in Boolean variables x [i]: i Z 1 are taken modulo algebraic relations { ∈ n} (x [i])2 x [i] (1.3) . i ≡Z ∀ ∈ n n 1 ( 0,1 × ) Proposition 1. The congruence class of a polynomial interpolant for a Boolean function F 0, 1 { } such as ∈{ }

x [0] + (2 x [i])i d [0] (2 d [j])j 0

(x [i])2 x [i] modulo relations − , necessarily includes a unique multilinear polynomial viewed as a member of i Zn Z ∀ ∈ ( /2Z)[x [0] , , x [n 1]]. ··· −

1 For notational convenience let Zn := [0,n) ∩ Z. ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 3

Proof. Consider the polynomial interpolant for a Boolean function F given by

x [0] + (2 x [i])i d [0] (2 d [j])j 0

x [j]2j d [k]2k 2 0 j

Further reducing the expanded form of the polynomial on the right-hand side modulo prescribed algebraic relations yields a multilinear polynomial. By Lagrange’s interpolation construction, we know that the unique multilinear interpolant of F is such that for all i Z ∈ n (x[i] 1)F (x[0], ,x[i 1],0,x[i+1], ,x[n 1]) F (x [0] , , x [i 1] , x [i] , x [i + 1] , , x [n 1]) − ··· − ··· − + ··· − ··· − ≡ 0 1 (1.7) − (x[i] 0)F (x[0], ,x[i 1],1,x[i+1], ,x[n 1]) − ··· 1− 0 ··· − mod 2. − Repeatedly applying the identity above to intermediary restrictions

F (x [0] , , x [i 1] , 0, x [i + 1] , , x [n 1]) ··· − ··· − and F (x [0] , , x [i 1] , 1, x [i + 1] , , x [n 1]) ··· − ··· − yields the desired claim.

Alternatively, the justiﬁcations for Prop. (1) can be viewed from two vantage points. The ﬁrst vantage point is provided by the sum product rule [Sha49]. The sum product rule, depicts an interpolation construction over the Boolean hypercube expressed by

x [i] d [i] x (1 b [i]) (1.8) − = i − − , b [i] d [i] 2b [i] 1 n 1 0 i

x [j]2j d [k]2k 0 j

The latter construction somewhat implicitly prescribes the same multilinear polynomial as the former. Crucially, note that both constructions express a arithmetic circuit of the form PQP (1.10) B [u, v, 0]+ B [u,v,w + 1] x [w] .  ·  n 1 0 v

n 1  b  0, 1 × d (n+1)  ∈{ }  × × s.t. F (b)=1 We say that the hypermatrix B C   underlies the arithmetic circuit in Eq.

∈ (1.10). Such sums of products of linear  functionals play a central role in our discussion. We take multilinear polynomials to be canonical representative of congruence classesPQP associated with polynomial interpolants modulo relations prescribed by Eq. (1.3). In fact such representatives inspire the following alternative n 1 ( 0,1 × ) encoding scheme for any Boolean function F 0, 1 { } (1.11) ∈{ }

1  T [i]   n 1 ∂ x [i] (1 b [i])  1 0, 1 × , F (1 ) − −  mod 2. ∀ T ⊂{ } T ≡  ∂x [i] 2b [i] 1    0 i

H [u, v, 0]+ H [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] = F (1R) τR x [j] ,  k ·  0 u<ρ 0 vsubset S Z k such that ⊆ n 1 if T S 1 if T S ⊆ ⊇ (1.14) F S (1T )= and F S (1T )= . ⊆  ⊇   0 otherwise  0 otherwise

  ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 5

Their PDEs are respectively expressed using multilinear polynomials of the forms

(1.15) τR x [j] and τR x [j] , R S j R R S j R X⊆ Y∈ X⊇ Y∈ where m (1.16) (τ ) =1, R Z k . R ∀ ⊆ n Note that 1 if T = S

(1.17) F=S (1T ) = (F S (1T ) F S (1T )) = , ⊆ ∧ ⊇   0 otherwise is such that  m 1 ∂ T [i] (1.18) F (1 )= P (x) . =S T  ∂x [i] =S   i Z nk x=0 ∈Y  nk 1  ×     where

(1.19) τ x [j]: R S τ x [j]: R S = P (x) ,  R ⊆  ∩  R ⊇  =S j R j R  Y∈   Y∈      (1.20) = P (x)= τ x [j] . ⇒ =S S j S Y∈ S For a ﬁxed integer m> 0, the counting argument stems from the observation that there are exactly m(2| |) distinct choices for m-th roots of unity which make up non-vanishing coeﬃcients of the multilinear polynomial

(1.21) τR x [j] , R S j R X⊆ Y∈ nk S and m 2 −| | distinct choices for m-th roots of unity which make up non-vanishing coeﬃcients of the multilinear polynomial

(1.22) τR x [j] . R S j R X⊇ Y∈ PDEs for F S and F S expressed via the families of multilinear polynomials above make up our proverbial “haystack”.⊆ Needles embedded⊇ in this haystack are “optimal” PDEs. The optimality criterion for PDEs is prescribed relative to the size of the smallest hypermatrix [Raz13, Kru77, Str72] which underlies the expression ( i.e. the arithmetic circuit ) of a multilinear polynomial used to specify a PDE. An optimal PDE is such that k B Cρ d (1+n ) thePQP hypermatrix × × which underlies the expression of the corresponding multilinear polynomial, minimizes the product∈ ρ d 1+ nk . For instance, in the equalities · · (1.23) τ x [j] = B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] ,  R   ·  R S j R 0 u<ρ 0 v

(1.24) τR x [j] = B′ [u, v, 0]+ B′ [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] ,    k ·  R S j R 0 u<ρ′ 0 v

(1.25) P S (x)= (1 + x [i]) and P S (x)= x [i] (1 + x [i]) ⊆ ⊇ i S i S ! i S Y∈ Y∈ Y∈ yield PDEs m 1 ∂ T [i] (1.26) F S (1T )= µ P S (diag (u) x) , ⊆  ∂x [i] ⊆ ·   i Z nk x=0 ∈Y  nk 1  ×     m T ∂| |µ P S (diag (u) x) (1.27) = F S (1T )=  ⊆ ·  . ⇒ ⊆ ∂x [i]   i T x=0  ∈  nk 1   Q  ×  and   m 1 ∂ T [i] (1.28) F S (1T )= µ P S (diag (u) x) , ⊇  ∂x [i] ⊇ ·   i Z nk x=0 ∈Y  nk 1  ×     m T ∂| |µ P S (diag (u) x) (1.29) = F S (1T )=  ⊇ ·  . ⇒ ⊇ ∂x [i]  i T x 0  ∈  = nk 1   Q  ×  m m m  m  where u◦ = 1nk 1, µ =1 ( recall that u◦ [i] = (u [i]) ) express optimal PDEs for F S and F S as established by the following proposition.× ⊆ ⊇

Proposition 2. Polynomials whose expanded form are m (τR) =1 (1.30) τR x [j] and τR x [j] , where , R Znk R S j R R S j R ∀ ⊆ X⊆ Y∈ X⊇ Y∈ are optimally expressed as sums of products of linear forms respectively by

(1.31) µ P S (diag (u) x) and µ P S (diag (u) x) , ⊆ · ⊇ · m m where u◦ = 1nk 1, µ =1 . × Proof. Prime factors in the factorization of the integer count for the number of non-vanishing monomial terms in the expanded form of P S (x) and P S (x) yield lower bounds for the number of non-vanishing terms which make ⊆ ⊇ S (nk S ) up each linear form. There are 2| | non-vanishing monomial terms in the expanded form of P S (x) and 2 −| | ⊆ non-vanishing terms in the expanded form of P S (x). ⊇ ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 7

Consequently, the smallest hypermatrix which underlies a polynomial which expands into an expression of the form (τ )m =1 τ x [j] , where R , R R S R S j R ∀ ⊆ X⊆ Y∈ is of size 1 S 1+ nk . Similarly, the smallest hypermatrix which underlies a polynomial which expands into an expression× | of|× the form (τ )m =1 τ x [j] , where R , R R S R S j R ∀ ⊇ X⊇ Y∈ k k is of size 1 n 1+ n . Furthermore, the expanded form of polynomials used to specify optimal PDEs for F S , × × S ⊆ S +1 2| | account for m| | polynomials out of a total m possible expanded polynomials. Similarly the expanded form k nk S n S +1 2 −| | of polynomials used to specify optimal PDEs for F S , account for m −| | polynomials out of a total of m possible expanded polynomials. ⊇ It serves our purpose to think of the nk entries of x as associated with distinct directed hyperedges of a complete directed n-vertex hypergraph of order k. Optimal PDEs such as the ones devised for F S and F S, epitomize membership of these Boolean functions to the class P. Namely the class of Boolean functions⊆ which admit⊇ eﬃcient PDEs ( i.e. PDEs whose size is upper bounded by some polynomial in nk ).

2. PDEs of cardinality variants of F S and F S. ⊆ ⊇ We now discuss slightly more intricate families of Boolean functions associated with cardinality variants of F S ⊆ and F S deﬁned by ⊇ 1 if T S 1 if T S | | ≤ | | | | ≥ | | (2.1) F S (1T )= and F S (1T )= . ≤| |  ≥| |   0 otherwise  0 otherwise

k With the goal in mind to express optimal PDEs for F S and F S , consider the symbolic n 1 orbital vector Z ≤| | ≥| | × k O whose entries depict the action of the symmetric group Snk on the hyperedge set. Each entry of the n 1 orbital k k × vector Z are monomials in entries of a symbolic n n ! matrix Z such that O ×

(2.2) Z [i]= Z [σ (i) , lex (σ)] , i Z k . O ∀ ∈ n σ S ∈Ynk The canonical representative of the congruence class

R S (2.3) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (σ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : | | ≤ | | , ⊆ O  − σ Snk  i R j R ∈ Y∈ Y∈  denotes the unique member of the congruence class which depends only upon entries ofY and crucially does not depend upon any entry of Z. We emphasize that the reduction by the prescribed algebraic relations be done in decreasing order of the cardinalities of the set parameter R. Proposition 3. The canonical representative of

R S (2.4) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (σ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : | | ≤ | | , ⊆ O  − σ Snk  i R j R ∈ Y∈ Y∈    ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 8 is the orbit list generating polynomial

Z R nk (2.6) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (σ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : ⊆ ⊆ O  − σ Snk  i R j R ∈ Y∈ Y∈    is obtained by replacing into the expanded form of P S ( Z) every occurrence of monomials in the entries of Z given by ⊆ O

R Z k (2.7) Z [i, lex (σ)] ⊆ n , ∀ σ Snk i R ∈ Y∈ with the monomial in entries of Y given by

(2.8) Y [j, lex (R)] . j R Y∈ Since the replacement is performed in decreasing order of the cardinalities of the set parameter R. Previous replacements performed for sets of larger cardinalities are unaﬀected by subsequent replacements performed for sets of smaller cardinalities. It follows that the canonical representative is

An identical argument establishes that the canonical representative of

R S (2.10) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (σ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : | | ≥ | | , ⊇ O  − σ Snk  i R j R ∈ Y∈ Y∈    ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 9 is the orbit list generating polynomial nk R ! R ! ( −| |) ·| | Y [i, lex (T )] , i R R Znk T Znk ∈ R⊆P S T ⊆Q= R Q | | ≥ | | | | | | (2.11) (nk R )! R ! nk S −| | ·| | = −|t | Y [i, lex (R)] S t nk i R R Z k | |≤ ≤ n ∈ P R⊆Q= t Q | | We modify slightly the orbit list generating polynomial to devise PDEs for F S and F S . Let canonical representative of ≤| | ≥| | (2.12) x[i] i R ∈ Z k 1 S R n , R S Z k Q | | P S (x)= P S ( ) mod Z [i, lex (σ)] (n R )! R ! ( R ) : ⊆ | | ≤ | | [0, 1] , ≤| |  ⊆ O  −  −| | ·| | · | |  σ Snk  i R 0 1 ∈ Y∈  (2.13)      x[i]  i R ∈ Z k 1 Q nk S R n , R S x Z Z k −| | P S ( )= P S ( ) mod [i, lex (σ)] (n R )! R ! ( R ) : ⊆ | | ≥ | | [0, 1] , ≥| |  ⊇ O  −  −| | ·| | · | |  σ Snk  i R 0 1 ∈ Y∈      and   x[i] i R Z 1 ∈ R nk , R = S (2.14) P= S (x)= P=S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (σ)] (nk QR )! R ! : ⊆ | | | | [0, 1] , | |  O  −  −| | ·| |  σ Snk  i R 0 1 ∈ Y∈  denote members of respective congruence classes which depe nd only upon entries of x and crucially do not depend   upon any entries of Z.

Proposition 4. Multivariate multilinear polynomials P S (x) and P S (x) are used to specify PDEs (2.15) ≤| | ≥| | m m T T ∂| |µP S (diag (u) x) ∂| |µP S (diag (u) x) F S (1T )=  ≤| | ·  and F S (1T )=  ≥| | ·  , ≤| | ∂x [i]  ≥| | ∂x [i]  i T x 0 i T x 0  ∈  = nk 1   ∈  = nk 1   Q  ×   Q  ×  m  m    where u◦ = 1nk 1 and µ =1. × Proof. Similarly to the argument used in to prove Prop. (3), canonical representatives for the ﬁrst of these congruence classes is obtained by replacing into the expanded form of P S ( Z) every occurrence of monomials in the entries of Z given by ⊆ O

R Z k (2.16) Z [i, lex (σ)] , ⊆ n , ∀ σ Snk i R ∈ Y∈ by the 2 2 matrix × x[i] i R ∈ 1 S k Q | | (2.17) (n R )! R ! ( R ) ,  −| | ·| | · | |  0 1   ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 10 canonical representatives for the second of the two congruence classes is obtained by replacing into the expanded form of P S ( Z) every occurrence of monomials in the entries of Z given by ⊇ O R Z k (2.18) Z [i, lex (σ)] , ⊆ n , ∀ σ Snk i R ∈ Y∈ by the 2 2 matrix × x[i] i R ∈ 1 Q nk S k −| | (2.19) (n R )! R ! ( R )  −| | ·| | · | |  0 1 The desired multilinear polynomial appears as the [0, 1] entry of the 2 2 matrix resulting from the substitutions. × Note that if there were other PDEs for F S and F S speciﬁed via polynomials whose expansion had fewer than ≤| | ≥| | the number of terms found in the expansion of P S (x) and P S (x) respectively, then this would contradict the ≤| | ≤| | optimality assertion for P S (x) and P S (x). ⊆ ⊇ nk ( t ) S +1 0 t S The construction above accounts only for m| | of the m ≤ ≤| | possible PDEs for F S . Similarly, the P ≤| | nk k ( t ) n S +1 S t nk construction above accounts for m −| | of the m| |≤P≤ possible PDEs for F S . Incidentally, ≥| | 1 if T = S | | | | (2.20) F= S (1T )= F S (1T ) F S (1T ) = , | | ≤| | ∧ ≥| |    0 otherwise  m T ∂| |µP= S (diag (u) x) (2.21) = F= S (1T )=  | | ·  , ⇒ | | ∂x [i]   i T x=0  ∈  nk 1   Q  ×  where  

(2.23) P S (x)= B [u, v, 0]+ B [u,v,w + 1] x [w] , ≤| |  ·  0 u<ρ 0 v

(2.24) P S (x)= B [u,v,w] x [w] , ≥| |  ·  0 u<ρ 0 v

nk nk nk,  t  × × S t nk | |≤X≤   Finally, in the equality

(2.25) P= S (x)= B [u,v,w] x [w] , | |  ·  0 u<ρ 0 v

(2.26) P S (x)=1 and P S (x)= (1 + x [i]) ≤| | ≥| | i Z ∈Ynk whose underlying hypermatrix are of size 1 1 1+ nk and 1 nk 1+ nk respectively. When S = nk, PDEs × × × × | | for F S and F S are optimally speciﬁed by multilinear polynomials ≤| | ≥| |

(2.27) P S (x)= (1 + x [i]) and P S (x)= x [i] ≤| | ≥| | i Z i Z ∈Ynk ∈Ynk whose underlying hypermatrix are of size 1 nk 1+ nk and 1 nk nk respectively. When S =1, PDEs for × × × × | | F S and F S are optimally speciﬁed by multilinear polynomials ≤| | ≥| |

(2.28) P S (x)=1+ x [i] and P S (x)= (1 + x [i]) 1 ≤| | ≥| | − i Z i Z ∈Xnk ∈Ynk whose underlying hypermatrix are of size 1 1 1+ nk and 2 nk 1+ nk respectively. When S = nk 1, × × × × | | − PDEs for F S and F S are optimally speciﬁed by multilinear polynomials ≤| | ≥| |

(2.29) P S (x)= (1 + x [i]) x [i] and P S (x)= x [i]+ x [j] ≤| | − ≥| | i Z k i Z k i Z k i Z k j Z i ∈Yn ∈Yn ∈Yn ∈Xn ∈ Ynk \{ } whose underlying hypermatrix are both of size 2 nk 1+ nk . Consequently, when S 0, 1,nk 1,nk × × | | ∈ − these optimal PDEs for F S and F S certify membership of F S and F S to the class P. However, when ≤| | ≥| | ≤| | ≥| | k S = O √n , the perturbative approach illustrated above does not yield certiﬁcates of membership of F S and | | ≤| | F S to the class P. ≥| | ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 12

3. Partial Differential Programs. We introduce here a variant of PDEs called Partial Diﬀerential Programs ( or PDPs for short). A PDP diﬀers from a PDE counterparts in the fact that the multilinear polynomial used to specify a PDE is implicitly prescribed modulo some polynomial size algebraic relations given in their expanded form. In fact the interpolation construction described in Eq. (1.6), illustrates an implicit descriptions of the unique multilinear interpolant in Eq. (1.8). More concretely, we seek to reduce the size of arithmetic formulas describing multilinear polynomials P S (x) ≤| | and P S (x) used to specify PDEs for F S and F S . We achieve this by only prescribing P S (x) and P S (x) up to≥| congruence| modulo default algebraic≤|PQP relations| ≥| | ≤| | ≥| |

(x [i])2 x [i] (3.1) − . i Z k ∀ ∈ n Exploiting the reduction in size incurred by reducing modulo prescribed algebraic relations entails a broadening of the model of computation. This broadening hinges upon the fact that multilinear polynomials used to specify PDEs are implicitly prescribed by supplying a member of their congruence class which is not necessarily multilinear. We refer to such implicit encodings as programs. For instance, consider a PDE for the Boolean function speciﬁed by the following truth table : x [1] x [0] F (x) 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 ∂ T [0] ∂ T [1] (3.2) = F (1T )= P (x) . ⇒  ∂x [0] ∂x [1] %  x=02 1 ×   The multilinear polynomial P (x) used to specify a PDE for F is (3.3) P (x)=1+ x [0] + x [0] x [1] . · Trivially, we read from the expanded form that a 3 2 3 hypermatrix underlies P (x). However, hypermatrices which underlies optimal expression of P (x) are of size× 2× 2 3 as seen from the equality × × P (x) = (B [0, 0, 0]+ B [0, 0, 1] x [0] + B [0, 0, 2] x [1]) (B [0, 1, 0]+ B [0, 1, 1] x [0] + B [0, 1, 2] x [1])× (3.4) + (B [1, 0, 0]+ B [1, 0, 1] x [0] + B [1, 0, 2] x [1]) (B [1, 1, 0]+ B [1, 1, 1] x [0] + B [1, 1, 2] x [1])×.

2 2 3 For instance, we may take non-zero entries of B 0, 1 × × such that ∈{ } (3.5) B [0, 0, 0] = B [0, 1, 0] = B [1, 0, 1] = B [1, 1, 0] = B [1, 1, 2]=1, as seen from the equality (3.6) P (x)=1+ x [0] + x [0] x [1]= 1+ x [0] (1 + x [1]) . · · ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 13

Some optimal PDEs for F are given by m 1 1 ∂ T [0] ∂ T [1] (3.7) F (1T )= µ + µ u [0] x [0] (1 + u [1] x [1]) ,  ∂x [0] ∂x [1] · · · · %  x=02 1 × where   (3.8) µm = (u [0])m = (u [1])m =1. On the other hand, we may instead prescribe P (x) up to congruence modulo relations (3.9) (x [0])2 x [0] and (x [1])2 x [1] . − − We specify a PDP for F via a polynomial Q (x) which lies in the congruence class of P (x) as follows

1 [0] 1 [1] ∂ T ∂ T (x [0])2 x [0] (3.10) F (1T )= Q (x) mod 2 − .  ∂x [0] ∂x [1] (x [1]) x [1] %  x=02 1 − ×   Optimal choices for B′ which underlies Q (x) are of size 1 2 3 as seen from × × (3.11) Q (x) = (B′ [0, 0, 0]+ B′ [0, 0, 1] x [0] + B′ [0, 0, 2] x [1]) (B′ [0, 1, 0]+ B′ [0, 1, 1] x [0] + B′ [0, 1, 2] x [1]) . · · · · One such hypermatrix is completely determined by the partial assignment

√5√2 4 √5√3+17 √5√3+6 +8 √5√3+34+ √5√3+3 4 √5√3+17+8 (3.12) B′ [0, 0, 1] = − qp 2 √5√3+ 4 √5√3+17+4 p p 4 √15+17 1 (3.13) B′ [0, 0, 2] = 1, B′ [0, 1, 1] = , B′ [0, 1, 2]=1. − −p 2 − 2 Although exact radical expression for B′ [0, 0, 0] and B′ [0, 1, 0], are easily obtained via elimination, they are unfortunately too prohibitively large to be displayed here. The example illustrates a concrete instance in which optimal PDPs for F are smaller than optimal PDEs for F . By definition, PDEs of a Boolean function form a proper subset of PDPs of the same Boolean function. There are finitely many PDEs for any given Boolean functions on nk-bit input strings ( for any fixed PDE exponent parameter m ). By contrast there are infinitely many distinct PDPs for a given Boolean functions on nk-bit input strings ( for any fixed PDE exponent parameter m ). Boolean functions F S , F S and F= S are all symmetric with respect to permutations of the input variables, ≤| | ≥| | | | So too are multilinear polynomials P S (x), P S (x) and P= S (x) used to specify respective PDEs. Recall the well known Newton identities. These≤| identities| ≥| relate| the densest| | (in their monomial support) generators for the ring of symmetric polynomials given by

(3.14) e (x)= x [j] , t Z k 0 , t ∀ ∈ n +1\{ } Z j R R X nk Y∈ R⊆ = t | | to the sparsest set of generators ( for the same ring ) given by

t (3.15) p (x)= (x [i]) , t Z k 0 t ∀ ∈ n +1\{ } 0 i

Proposition 5. For all t Z k 0 , we have ∈ n +1\{ } mi t ( pi (x)) (3.16) et (x) = ( 1) − . mi − m +2m + +tm =t mi! i 1 2 ··· t 1 i t m 0,...,m 0 ≤ ≤ 1≥ X t≥ Y Proof. Consider the polynomial 1 1 (nk 1)! (3.17) (x [σ (0)] y [γ (1)]) − = (x [i] y [j]) (nk 1)! − − σ S γ S i Z j Z − X∈ nk ∈Ynk ∈Xnk ∈Ynk

(3.18) = 0= pt (x) enk t (x) . ⇒ · − 0 t nk ≤X≤ Solving by back-substitution the resulting triangular system of linear equations in presumed unknowns et (x), t Z k 0 yields Newton’s identity ∀ ∈ n +1\{ } mi t ( pi (x)) (3.19) et (x) = ( 1) − . mi − m +2m + +tm =t mi! i 1 2 ··· t 1 i t m 0,...,m 0 ≤ ≤ 1≥ X t≥ Y

The abundance of non-vanishing terms in expanded forms of multilinear polynomials used to specify PDEs for F S and F S , constitutes the main obstacle to trivially certifying the membership of F S and F S to the class≤| | P. Using≥| Newton’s| identity, we eliminate as many cross terms as possible from multilinear≤| | polynomials≥| | used specify PDEs for F S and F S . Crucially, our elimination procedure leaves the congruence class unchanged. The ≤| | ≥| | elimination procedure therefore converts large PDEs for F S and F S into small PDPs for F S and F S . This follows from the congruence identity ≤| | ≥| | ≤| | ≥| | 2 (x [i]) x [i] Z (3.20) pt (x) p1 (x) mod − , t nk 0 . ≡ i Z k ∀ ∈ \{ } ∀ ∈ n Consequently, we have mi 2 ( p1 (x)) x x x t ( [i]) [i] (3.21) et ( ) ( 1) − m mod − . i i Z k ≡ − m +2m + +tm =t mi! i n 1 2 ··· t 1 i t m 0,...,m 0 ≤ ≤ ∀ ∈ 1≥ X t≥ Y It follows that within respective congruence classes (x [i])2 x [i] (x [i])2 x [i] (3.22) P S (x) mod − and P S (x) mod − ≤| | i Z k ≥| | i Z k ∀ ∈ n ∀ ∈ n lies univariate polynomials in the linear functional x [i] of degree S and nk respectively. In particular, 0 iTheorem of Algebra, there exists 0 i< S ≤ | | (3.24) α,β,γ α ,β ,γ : 0 j

n+1 1 j+1 H (A)= (x [i]) x [i] (x [i] 1)− mod (x [i]) A [i, j] θ : i, j Z n − · − − j ∈ n i Z Y∈ n n o

1 0 0 0 1 0 (3.28) mod θ : m Z [2n 1, 0] .  m −  0 1  ⊗ 1 0 ⊗  0 1  ∈ n − 1 k

Theorem 6. The family of circuits Hn in entries of the n n matrix A evaluates to a family of polynomials in the entries of A which include as their two extreme members× det(A) and Per(A) depending only upon how expanded we express the canonical representative ( i.e. the member of the congruence class which does not depend on entries of x ) of

2π j √ 1 (3.29) x [i] x [i] exp · · − mod (x [i])j+1 A [i, j] θ : i, j Z  − n  − j ∈ n 0 i

1 0 0 0 1 0 (3.30) θ = , 0 m < n. m  0 1  ⊗ 1 0 ⊗  0 1  ∀ ≤ 1 k

2π j √ 1 (3.31) x [i] x [i] exp · · − mod (x [i])j+1 A [i, j] θ : i, j Z ,  − n  − j ∈ n 0 i

(3.32) A [i, j] θ  j  i Z j Z Y∈ n X∈ n Performing the substitution into the canonical representa tive 

1 0 0 0 1 0 (3.33) θ = , 0 m < n, m  0 1  ⊗ 1 0 ⊗  0 1  ∀ ≤ 1 k

(3.36) Per (A) θ .  j  j Z Y∈ n  

Thrm. (6) strengthens a result proved in [ELSW18]. Thrm. (6) suggests that the separation between the permanent and the determinant polynomial is a more delicate matter than it would seem at ﬁrst glance. Note that the hypermatrix which underlies

2π j √ 1 x [i] x [i] exp · · −  − n  0 i

A [i, j] 0 i

 0 i 1 i +1 n 1 PTree (A)= A [i,i] det (diag (A1n 1) A) ··· − ··· − × 0 i 1 i +1 n 1 Z − i n ··· − ··· − X∈ m M ∂ [i,j] (3.39) FTree (M)= PTree (A U) ,  ∂ A [i, j] ◦   0 i,j

 m  M ∂ [i,j] (3.40) Fcycles (M)= Per (A U) ,  ∂ A [i, j] ◦   0 i,j

Pcycles (A)= τσ A [i, σ (i)] σ S i Z X∈ n Y∈ n is of size

1 α 1+ n2 , ×  p × p P X∈ where   n α = , p P. p pj ∀ ∈ j 1 X≥ PDEs for the determinant over Galois ﬁelds with two elements are given by n2 1 F : 0, 1 × 0, 1 det { } →{ } m 1 [n i+j] ∂ T · (3.41) F (1 )= Pdet (diag (µ) x) , det T  ∂ x [n i + j] ·   0 i,j

vj [i] (3.42) τv0, ,vn 1 (x [n i + j]) , ··· − n 1 n 1 ··· n 1 · v0 (F2) × Span 0 v1 (F2) × Span v0 vn 1 (F2) × Span v0, ,vn 2 0 i,jcircuit complexity. For instance consider the family of polynomials with distinct integer roots.

(3.43) := (x k): d N . F ( − ∈ ) 0

Now performing the change of variable y = ln (z) yields d 1 d − 2πk√ 1 (3.48) ln (z) ln exp − . 2π √ 1 − d − 0

d 1 2πk√ 1 (3.50) = roots in z of z 1 (z 1)− roots in z of ln z ln exp − . ⇒ − · − ⊂ − d ( 0

y 1 2πk√ 1 (3.52) = roots in y of (exp (dy) 1) (e 1)− roots in y of y ln exp − ⇒ − · − ⊂ ( − d ) n o 0

exp 2πx√ 1 1 (3.55) = roots in x of (x k) = R roots in x of − − . ⇒ −  ∩  2πx√ 1  ( 0

The action of the symmetric group on T Z k is prescribed such that ⊆ n (4.2) σ Snk , σT := σ (T )= σ (lex (i0, ,ik 1)) : lex (i0, ,ik 1) T . ∀ ∈ { ··· − ··· − ∈ } G G Let n denote the subgroup of Snk induced by the action of Sn on the vertex set. That is to say, for each Λ n, there is a permutation λ S such that ∈ ∈ n

(4.3) Λ i nt = λ (i ) nt.  t ·  t · 0 t

k k k Recall that entries of the orbital n 1 vector Z are monomials in entries of a symbolic n n ! matrix Z and given by × O ×

(4.9) Z [i]= Z [σ (i) , lex (σ)] , i Z k . O ∀ ∈ n σ S ∈Ynk

Z (4.10) = Z [i]= Z [σΛ (i) , lex (σΛ)] , i nk . ⇒ O  S  ∀ ∈ Λ Gn σ k/G Y∈ ∈ Yn n k   Consider the sub-orbital n 1 vector Z whose entries are divisors of corresponding entries of Z given by × P O Z [i] (4.11) Z [i]= O , i Z k . P ∀ ∈ n Z [σΛ (i) , lex (σΛ)] G S G Λ n σ ( nk/ n) id ! ∈Q ∈ Q \{ }

(4.12) = Z [i]= Z [Λ (i) , lex (Λ)] , i Z k . ⇒ P ∀ ∈ n Λ G Y∈ n ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 22

In other words Z depicts the action of the subgroup Gn on the hyperedge set. For simplicity, we set k = 2 and typically disallowP loop edges in S. Let the canonical representative of the congruence class

R S (4.13) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (Λ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : ⊂ , ⊆ P  − ∼G  i R j R Λ n Y∈ Y∈ ∈  denote the member of the congruence class which depends only upon entries of Y.  Proposition 8. The canonical representative of the congruence class

R S (4.14) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (Λ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : ⊂ ⊆ P  − ∼G  i R j R Λ n Y∈ Y∈ ∈  expresses the orbit list generating polynomial  AutR | | (4.15) Y [i, lex (σR)] ,

R S σ Gn/AutR i σR ! ⊂ ∈ X∼ ∈ Y Y

AutR | | (4.16) = γS,R Y [i, lex (σR)] , σ Gn/AutR i σR ! XZ Iso ∈ Y ∈Y R ℘ 2 n / ∈ (2)! R S ⊂∼

℘ Z Iso where 2 n / denotes the set of distinct conjugacy classes of n-vertex directed graphs and γS,R denotes the (2)! number of distinct subgraphs of S which are isomorphic to R. Proof. The canonical representative of

R S (4.17) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (Λ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : ⊂ ⊆ P  − ∼G  i R j R Λ n Y∈ Y∈ ∈  is obtained by replacing in the expanded form of P S ( Z) every occurrence of  ⊆ P  R S (4.18) Z [i, lex (Λ)] , ⊂ ∀ ∼G i R Λ n Y∈ ∈ by

(4.19) Y [i, lex (R)] . i R Y∈ It follows that the canonical representative is

AutR | | (4.20) Y [i, lex (σR)] ,

R S σ Gn/AutR i σR ! ⊂ ∈ X∼ ∈ Y Y ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 23

AutR | | (4.21) = γS,R Y [i, lex (σR)] , σ Gn/AutR i σR ! XZ ∈ Y ∈Y R ℘ 2 n /Iso ∈ (2)! R S ⊂∼ as claimed.

Similarly, the canonical representative of the congruence class

R S (4.22) P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (Λ)] Y [j, lex (R)] : ⊃ ⊇ P  − ∼G  i R j R Λ n Y∈ Y∈ ∈  expresses the orbit generating polynomial for supergraphs of S  AutR | | (4.23) Y [i, lex (σR)] ,

R S σ Gn/AutR i σR ! ⊃ ∈ X∼ ∈ Y Y

AutR | | (4.24) = ΓS,R Y [i, lex (σR)] , σ Gn/AutR i σR ! XZ ∈ Y ∈Y R ℘ 2 n /Iso ∈ (2)! R S ⊃∼ ℘ Z where 2 n /Iso denotes the set of distinct conjugacy classes of n-vertex directed graphs and ΓS,R denotes the (2)! number of distinct supergraphs of S isomorphic to R. Canonical representatives in Eq. (4.16) and Eq (4.24) respectively list unlabeled subgraph and supergraphs of S. Let canonical representative of

x[i] i R R Z n 1 G ∈ 2(2) (4.25) P S (x)= P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (Λ)] n/AutRQ AutR γS,R : ⊆ [0, 1] , ⊂  ⊆ P  −  | || |  Λ G  ∼ i R 0 1 n Y∈ ∈      and   x[i] i R R Z n 1 G ∈ 2(2) (4.26) P S (x)= P S ( Z) mod Z [i, lex (Λ)] n/AutRQAutR ΓS,R : ⊆ [0, 1] , ⊃  ⊇ P  −  | || |  Λ G  ∼ i R 0 1 n Y∈ ∈   x   Z  denote respective polynomials in the entries of which do not depend upon entries of . 

Proposition 9. Multilinear polynomials P S (x) and P S (x) are used to express PDEs ⊂ ⊃ (4.27) ∼ ∼ m m T T ∂| |µ P S (diag (u) x) ∂| |µ P S (diag (u) x) ⊂ · ⊃ · F S (1T )=  ∼  , F S (1T )=  ∼  , ⊂ ∂x [i]  ⊃ ∂x [i]  ∼  ∼   i T x=0   i T x=0  ∈  2 n 1 ∈  2 n 1  (2)   (2)   Q  ×   Q  ×  m  m    where u◦ = 12 n 1, µ =1. (2)× ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 24

Proof. Similarly to the argument used to prove Prop. (6), we observe that canonical representatives are obtained by replacing into the expanded form of P S ( Z) every occurrence of ⊆ P R S (4.28) Z [i, lex (Λ)] , ⊂ ∀ ∼G i R Λ n Y∈ ∈ by the 2 2 matrix × x[i] i R 1 G ∈ (4.29) n/AutRQ AutR γS,R  0| || 1 |    for the ﬁrst of the two congruence classes. For the latter of the two congruence classes we replace every occurrence of

R S (4.30) Z [i, lex (Λ)] , ⊃ ∀ ∼G i R Λ n Y∈ ∈ by the 2 2 matrix × x[i] i R 1 G ∈ (4.31) n/AutRQ AutR ΓS,R .  0| || 1 |    The desired multilinear polynomials respectively appear at the [0, 1] entry of the ﬁnal 2 2 matrix resulting from these matrix substitutions. ×

Incidentally

1 if T S ≃ (4.32) F S (1T )= F S (1T ) F S (1T ) = , ≃ ⊂ ∧ ⊃  ∼  0 otherwise

 m

1 [i]  ∂ T  (4.33) = F S (1T )= µ P S (diag (u) x) . ≃ ≃  ⇒ Z ∂x [i] ·   i n  ∈ 2   Y(2) x=0   2 n 1  (2)    ×    where

(4.34) P S (x)= x [i] . ≃ σ Gn/AutS i σS ∈ X Y∈ G n The trivial hypermatrix which underlies P S is of size n/AutS S 2 . ≃ | | × | |× 2 ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 25

The following correspondence ensues when comparing orbit list generating polynomials used to express cardinality variants F S , F S to the orbit list generating polynomials used to express isomorphism variants F S and F S ≤| | ≥| | ⊂ ⊃ ∼ ∼ n2 R ! R ! AutR , − | | · | | → | |  S G  | | n/AutR γ , (4.35)  R S,R  | | → | | ·  2 n S G n AutR  −|R | / ΓS,R.  | | → | | ·  In stark contrast to polynomials used to specify PDPs for F S and F S , which were both univariate polynomials in the linear functional ≤| | ≥| | x [σ (0)] σ S 2 n ∈ (2) P , 2 n 1 ! 2 − we show that any univariate polynomial in the same linear functional, which expresses a member of the congruence class of either P S, P S or P S must be of exponentially large degree. ⊂ ⊃ ≃ ∼ ∼

Theorem 10. The congruence classes of polynomials used to specify PDPs for F S , F S and F S include roots to ⊂ ⊃ ≃ ∼ ∼ S respective symbolic univariate polynomials in ζ of degree 2 n /Gn and whose coeﬃcients are univariate polynomials (2) 1 n − x in the linear functional 2 2 1 ! [σ (0)] . − σ S 2 n ∈ (2) P Proof. We discuss the argument in detail for P S since it is identical to arguments for P S and P S. For simplicity ≃ ⊂ ⊃ ∼ S ∼ assume that S Z n , is associated with a rigid graph ( i.e. AutS = id ). For all σ 2 n /Gn, let 2 (2) ⊂ (2) { } ∈ (4.36) z [lex (σ)] = x [σΛ (i)] . Λ G i S X∈ n Y∈ Consider the densest set of generators for the ring of symmetric polynomials in entries of z. We have

(4.37) e1 (z)= x [σΛ (i)] . S G Λ G i S σ 2 n / n n ∈ X(2) X∈ Y∈ Note that, x [σ (0)] σ S 2 n 2 ∈ (2) (x [i]) x [i] P (4.38) P= S (x)= e1 (z) γ1 γ1,j + n  mod Z− . | | ≡ 2 1 ! i 2 n 0 j< S 2 ( ∀ ∈ (2) ) ≤Y| |  −      S The remaining generators are associated with the integer parameter t subject to 1

x [σ (0)] σ S 2 n 2 ∈ (2) (x [i]) x [i] P (4.39) et (z) γt γt,j + n  mod Z− . ≡ 2 1 ! i 2 n 0 j< S t 2 ( ∀ ∈ (2) ) ≤Y| |  −      ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 26

S In particular the generator of highest total degree is associated with t = 2 n /Gn given by (2)

(4.40) e (z)= x [σ Λ (i)] S G 2 n / n (2) σ S /G Λ G i R ! 2 n n n ∈ Y(2) X∈ Y∈

x [σ (0)] σ S 2 n 2 ∈ (2) (x [i]) x [i] (4.41) γ γ + P  mod − . S S n Z n n /Gn n /Gn ,j i ≡ 2 2 2 1 ! 2(2) (2) S (2) 2 ( ∀ ∈ ) n /Gn − Y 2   0 j< S (2)   ≤ | |   It follows that

S G 2 n / n t t (2) − (4.42) P Roots in ζ of  ( 1) e (z) ζ  , S t ≃ ∈ − ·

 S G  0 t X2 n / n  ≤ ≤ (2) 

    where each coeﬃcient et (z), as pointed out above is a univariate polynomial in the linear functional x [i]. 0 i<2 n ≤ (2) n P As such, the hypermatrix which underlies e (z) is of size 1 t 1+2 . t × × 2 As a corollary of Thrm. (18) and properties of roots of univar iate polynomials [Stu00, May36, Bir27], P S , ≃ P S and P S include in their respective congruence classes, evaluations of multivariate hypergeometric functions, ⊂ ⊃ at∼ some products∼ of linear functionals ( which are symmetric with respect to permutations of edge variables). In S G particular it follows that neither polynomials P S, P S or P S can be expressed as a sum of fewer than 2 n / n ⊂ ⊃ ≃ (2) symmetric product of linear functionals. ∼ ∼

We have thus far described two canonical PDP constructions for F S, F S and F S. The ﬁrst construction ⊂ ⊃ ≃ trivially follows from the Lagrange interpolation mediated by binary encodings∼ in∼ Eq. (1.6). The second construction is obtained by the elimination of cross terms as described in the proof of Thrm. (18). Both constructions typically result in exponentially large PDPs. A lower bounds for an optimal PDE/PDP follows from the prime factorization of the count of non vanishing terms occurring in the expanded form of multilinear polynomials used to specify a PDE. For instance consider Boolean functions F S. Let the prime factorization of the count of non-vanishing terms ≃ in the expanded form of P S be given by ≃ G αp n/AutS = p , | | p P Y∈ where P N denotes the set of all primes. In particular when S is rigid, ⊂ n α = , p P. p pj ∀ ∈ j 1 X≥ The smallest hypermatrix which underlies any multilinear polynomial whose expanded form has pαp non van- p P ∈ ishing terms is of size Q n 1 α 1+2 . ×  p × 2 p P X∈   ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 27

When S is rigid, by Legendre’s formula this yields a lower bound of n n s (n) (4.43) 1+2 − p , 2 p 1 1

Theorem 11. Let = S Z n , be given. Let PDPs for F S and F S be respectively expressed as 2(2) ⊂ ⊃ ∅ 6 ⊂ ∼ ∼ m

T (x [i])2 x [i]  ∂| |  (4.44) F S (1T )= µQ S (diag (u) x) mod Z− ⊂ ∂x [i] ⊂ · i n  ∼ ∼ ( ∀ ∈ 2(2) )  i T x=0  ∈  2 n 1  (2)   Q  ×    and m

T (x [i])2 x [i]  ∂| |  (4.45) F S (1T )= µQ S (diag (u) x) mod Z− , ⊃ ∂x [i] ⊃ · i n  ∼ ∼ ( ∀ ∈ 2(2) )  i T x=0  ∈  2 n 1  (2)   Q  ×    m m where u◦ = 12 n 1, µ =1, (2)×

(4.46) Q S (x)= B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] , ⊂   ∼ · 0 u<ρ 0 v

(4.47) Q S (x)= B′ [u, v, 0]+ B′ [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] . ⊃   ∼ n · 0 u<ρ′ 0 v

and n ℘ Z Iso ℘ Z Iso ρ′ d′ 1+2 R 2 n / : R S + R 2 n / : R S . · · 2 ≤ ∈ (2)! ⊃ ∈ (2)! ⊃ ∼ 6∼

ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 28

ρ d (1+2(n)) Proof. It suﬃces to work out in detail the upper bound for the size of B C × × 2 , since the the argument n ∈ ρ′ d′ (1+2( )) is identical for B′ C × × 2 . By deﬁnition of PDPs we have ∈ (x [i])2 x [i] (4.48) x [i] B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] mod Z− . ≡  ·  i 2 n R S i R 0 u<ρ 0 v

(4.49) x [i]= KR (B) x [i] , R S i R R Z i R ⊂ ∈ ⊆ 2 n ∈ X∼ Y X(2) Y where for all R Z n , the multivariate polynomial KR (B) is given by ∀ ⊆ 2(2) (4.50)

∂ di KR (B)= B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] , d√i x   di! ∂ [i] n ·  di 1:i R i R 0 u<ρ 0 v

n n Cρ d (1+2(2)) equations in the ρ d 1+2 2 unknown entries for B × × . Clearly d S and we know from the method of elimination· · via resultants that the correspondin∈g system has ﬁnitely many solutions≥ | | if there are as many unknowns as there are algebraically independent constraints. From which we derive the bound R S n ℘ Z ℘ Z (4.54) ρ d 1+2 R 2 n /Iso : R S + R 2 n /Iso : ⊂ . (2) (2) 6∼ · · 2 ≤ ∈ ! ⊂ ( ∈ ! R d ) ∼ | |≤

ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 29

Taking d = S yields the bound | | R S ℘ Z ℘ Z R 2 n /Iso : R S + R 2 n /Iso : ⊂ (2) (2) 6∼ ∈ ! ⊂ ( ∈ ! R d ) (4.55) ρ ∼ | |≤ . ≤ n S 1+2 2 | | ·

It follows from Polya’s Enumeration Theorem [Pol37, Pol40] that

R S ℘ Z ℘ Z n R 2 n /Iso : R S + R 2 n /Iso : ⊂ 2 (2)! (2)! 6∼ (2) ∈ ⊂∼ ( ∈ R S ) S | | ≤ | | = O | | . n  n  S 1+2 2 n! S 1+2 2 | | · · | | ·   Note that we need not consider all constraints associated with every conjugacy classes in R S ℘ Z ℘ Z R 2 n /Iso : R S R 2 n /Iso : ⊂ . (2) (2) 6∼ ∈ ! ⊂ ∪ ( ∈ ! R d ) ∼ | |≤ For we know that the total number of constraints required to determine entries of B can not exceed

2(n) min R Z n : R S , 1+2 2 R Z n : R S . ∈ 2(2) ⊂ − ∈ 2(2) ⊂ n ∼ o n ∼ o n n An upper bound which can be sharp, when for instance S 0, 1, 2 2 1, 2 2 . In particular when restricting the analysis exclusively to undirected graphs and assuming| | ∈ that S describes− a complete graph K , then the r+1 following bounds follows from Turán’s theorem

R S n Z n ℘ n ⊃ (4.56) αp 1+2 R /Iso : 6∼ 2 ρ′ d′ 1+ , (2)! r+1 1 n  P  · 2 ≤ ( ∈ R 1 ) ≤ · · 2 p 2 r 2 X∈ ≤ | |≤ −   where

αp (4.57) p = R Z n : R S   ⊆ (2) ⊃ p P ∼ Y∈ n o   and

n ℘ Z ℘ Z (4.58) ρ′ d′ 1+ R n /Iso : R S + R n /Iso : R S . · · 2 ≤ ∈ (2)! ⊃ ∈ (2)! ⊃ ∼ 6∼

For illustration purposes, we apply the argument used to prove Thrm. (11), to derive bounds on the size of PDPs for F S given by ≃ m

T x 2 x  ∂| | ( [i]) [i]  (4.59) F S (1T )= µQ S (diag (u) x) mod Z− , ≃ ∂x [i] ≃ · i n  ( ∀ ∈ 2(2) )  i T x=0  ∈  2 n 1  (2)   Q  ×    ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 30

m m where u◦ = 12 n 1, µ =1, and (2)×

(4.60) Q S (x)= B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] . ≃  ·  0 u<ρ 0 v

(x [i])2 x [i] (4.61) x [i] B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] mod Z− . ≡  ·  i n G n ( 2(2) ) σ n/AutS i σS 0 u<ρ 0 v

(4.62) x [i]= KR (B) x [i] ,

Gn AutS i σS R Z i R σ / 2 n ∈ X Y∈ ⊆X(2) Y∈ where for all R Z n , the multivariate polynomial KR (B) is given by ∀ ⊆ 2(2) (4.63)

∂ di KR (B)= B [u, v, 0]+ B [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] , d√i x   di! ∂ [i] n ·  di 1:i R i R 0 u<ρ 0 v

℘ Z R S (4.66) 1+ R 2 n /Iso : 6≃ ∈ (2)! R S | | ≤ | |

n ρ d (1+2(n)) equations in the ρ d 1+2 unknown entries of B C × × 2 . These constraints are of the form · · 2 ∈ Z R ℘ 2 n /Iso KσS (B) ∈ (2)! (4.67) 1= G 0= KσR (B): .  n/AutS  ∪  R S  σ Gn/AutS  σ Gn/AutR 6≃   ∈ X | |  ∈ X R S  | | ≤ | |     ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 31

Clearly not all constraints from the set

Z R ℘ 2 n /Iso ∈ (2)! (4.68) 0= KσR (B): R S  .  σ Gn/AutR 6≃   ∈ X R S  | | ≤ | | are required to determine B. For we know that the total number of constraints must be upper-bounded by the size of the trivial hypermatrix derived from the expanded form. Hence n n G 2 2 G n (4.69) ρ d 1+2 min n/AutS , 1+ n/AutS S 2 . · · 2 ≤ | | S − | | · | | · 2 | | This latter bound can be sharp, for instance in settings where S 0, 1, 2 n 1, 2 n or | | ∈ 2 − 2 n G 2 2 G min n/AutS , 1+ n/AutS 1, 2 . | | S − | | ∈{ } | | Clearly, we can improve the upper considering instead the smallest subset of generating constraints. This improved n upper bound for ρ d 1+2 2 in the setting of subgraph isomorphism is equal to the cardinality the smallest algebraically independent· · subset of generator constraints from the set R S ℘ Z ℘ Z (4.70) 0 = c = K (B): R 2 n /Iso : R S 0= K (B): R 2 n /Iso : ⊂ , R R (2) R (2) 6∼ 6 ∈ ! ⊂ ∪ ( ∈ ! R d ) ∼ | |≤ where cR are conveniently chosen constant non-zero constant which minimize the size of the subset of generator constraints.

5. Applications

The size of optimal PDPs for F S is almost identical to the size of optimal PDPs for F S by complementarity where ≃ 6≃ 1 if T S 6≃ (5.1) F S (1T )=1 F S (1T )= . 6≃ − ≃   0 otherwise

For we know that if an optimal PDP for F S is given by  ≃  m

T x 2 x  ∂| | ( [i]) [i]  (5.2) F S (1T )= µQ S (diag (u) x) mod Z− , ≃ ∂x [i] ≃ · i n  ( ∀ ∈ 2(2) )  i T x=0  ∈  2 n 1  (2)   Q  ×  m m   where u◦ = 12 n 1, µ =1, and (2)×

(5.3) Q S (x)= B [i, j, 0]+ B [i, j, 1+ k] x [k] . ≃  ·  0 i<ρ 0 jbijection as a permutation matrix is expressed via a multilinear polynomial≃ whose expanded form is

n v+σ(v) (5.4) P S (x)= τσ m 2 · x [i] , ≃ σ Sn/AutS s0 v

1 [i] 1 where T = σS and v = σ (u)  ∂ T  F S, n u+v (1T )= P S, n u+v (x) = . ≃ · ≃ ·   Z ∂x [i]   i n   ∈ 2   0 otherwise  Y(2) x=0    2 n 1   (2)×    The symmetry breaking across conjugacy classes associated with non vanishing terms in the expanded form of polynomials used to specify PDEs for F S imlplies that optimal NP-PDP tuples ≃ (5.8) (F S, n u+v : 0 u = v

n v+σ(v) (5.10) P S (x)= 2 · x [i] , ⊃ ∼ R S mv i R X⊃ u v VertexX Span (S) Y∈ ∼ u ∈ u R σS u ⊇ yield NP-PDEs t m

1 [i]  ∂ T  F S (1T )= µ P S (diag (u) x) = ⊂ x ⊂  ∼ Z ∂ [i] ∼ ·   i n  ∈ 2   Y(2) x=0   2 n 1  (2)    ×   1  n v+σ− (v) 2 · if σT S v Vertex Span(T ) ⊆ (5.11)  ∈ P ,   0 otherwise and   m

1 [i]  ∂ T  F S (1T )= µ P S (diag (u) x) = ⊃ x ⊂  ∼ Z ∂ [i] ∼ ·   i n  ∈ 2   Y(2) x=0   2 n 1  (2)    ×    n v+σ(v) 2 · if T σS v Vertex Span(T ) ⊇ (5.12)  ∈ P .   0 otherwise

The symmetry breaking due to the coeﬃcients in the expanded form of P S and P S necessarily incurs an increase in  ⊂ ⊃ sizes of the optimal NP-PDP when compared to the size of optimal PDPs∼ for the∼ corresponding Boolean functions. Tuple NP-PDP constructions follows similarly to tuple NP-PDE constructions described above.

6. Concluding remarks The discussion featured a natural hierarchy of gradually increasing complexity for variants of Boolean functions F S and F S . It is natural at this point to inquire about the next level in this hierarchy of variants. We describe ⊆ ⊇ n Z here these variants, we view each point p (Z ) as describing a function f Z n such that ∈ n ∈ n p [i]= f (i) , i Z . ∀ ∈ n For all T (Z )n ⊆ n ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) (6.1) σT σ − := lex σfσ − (0) , ,σfσ − (n 1) : lex (f (0) , ,f (n 1)) T . ··· − ··· − ∈ n o ( 1) (6.2) ConjAut (T )= σ S : T = σT σ − . ∈ n For all T, R (Z )n, n o ⊆ n ( 1) (6.3) T R σ Sn/ConjAut(T ) such that R = σT σ − ≃ ⇐⇒ ∃ ∈ ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 34 and for T,S (Z )n, ⊆ n (6.4) T S R S s.t. T R. ⊂∼ ⇐⇒ ∃ ⊆ ≃ Let S(1) := S (Z )n, consider the compositional recurrence relation ⊆ n (6.5) S(k+1) = x [lex (fg (0) , ,fg (i) , ,fg (n 1))] : f,g S(k) ··· ··· − ∈ and n o (6.6) Span (S) = lim S(k). k →∞ The next variant in the hierarchy is associated span variants of F S and F S prescribed by Boolean functions ⊆ ⊇ 1 if Span (T ) Span (S) ⊆ (6.7) F Span(S) (1T )= , ⊆   0 otherwise and  1 if Span (T ) Span (S) ⊇ (6.8) F Span(S) (1T )= . ⊇   0 otherwise

Harder yet, are isomorphism versions of span variants of F S and F S prescribed by Boolean functions  ⊆ ⊇ 1 if Span (T ) Span (S) ⊂∼ (6.9) F Span(S) (1T )= , ⊂  ∼  0 otherwise and  1 if Span (T ) Span (S) ⊃∼ (6.10) F Span(S) (1T )= . ⊃  ∼  0 otherwise

One may naturally wish to obtain bounds on the size of optimal PDPs for such Boolean functions a task which unfortunately appears to be out of reach for the methods presented here. References

[Aar16] Scott Aaronson, P=?np, pp. 1–122, springer international publishing, cham, 2016. [AV08] M. Agrawal and V. Vinay, Arithmetic circuits: A chasm at depth four, 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2008, pp. 67–75. [Bir27] Richard Birkeland, Über die auﬂösung algebraischer gleichungen durch hypergeometrische funktionen, Mathematische Zeitschrift 26 (1927), no. 1, 566–578. [Boo54] George Boole, An investigation of the laws of thought: On which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probabilities, Cambridge Library Collection - Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 1854. [BP20] Cornelius Brand and Kevin Pratt, An algorithmic method of partial derivatives, 2020. [BS83] Walter Baur and Volker Strassen, The complexity of partial derivatives, Theoretical Computer Science 22 (1983), no. 3, 317 – 330. [Cay89] Arthur Cayley, On the theory of linear transformations, Cambridge Library Collection - Mathematics, vol. 1, pp. 80–94, Cambridge University Press, 1889. [CKW11] Xi Chen, Neeraj Kayal, and Avi Wigderson, Partial derivatives in arithmetic complexity and beyond, Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 6 (2011), no. 1–2, 1–138. ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 35

[ELSW18] Klim Efremenko, J. M. Landsberg, Hal Schenck, and Jerzy Weyman, The method of shifted partial derivatives cannot separate the permanent from the determinant, Math. Comput. 87 (2018), 2037–2045. [FLMS17] Hervé Fournier, Nutan Limaye, Meena Mahajan, and Srikanth Srinivasan, The shifted partial derivative complexity of elementary symmetric polynomials, Theory of Computing 13 (2017), no. 9, 1–34. [For01] Lance Fortnow, Kolmogorov complexity, pp. 73 – 86, De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2001. [GIM+19] Ankit Garg, Christian Ikenmeyer, Visu Makam, Rafael Oliveira, Michael Walter, and Avi Wigderson, Search problems in algebraic complexity, gct, and hardness of generator for invariant rings, 2019. [GKKS16] Ankit Gupta, Pritish Kamath, Neeraj Kayal, and Ramprasad Saptharishi, Arithmetic circuits: A chasm at depth 3, SIAM Journal on Computing 45 (2016), no. 3, 1064–1079. [GMQ16] Joshua A. Grochow, Ketan D. Mulmuley, and Youming Qiao, Boundaries of VP and VNP, 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016) (Dagstuhl, Germany) (Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Michael Mitzen- macher, Yuval Rabani, and Davide Sangiorgi, eds.), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 55, Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016, pp. 34:1–34:14. [Gro20] Joshua A. Grochow, Complexity in ideals of polynomials: Questions on algebraic complexity of circuits and proofs, Bull. EATCS 130 (2020). [GRS15] Edinah K. Gnang, Maksym Radziwill, and Carlo Sanna, Counting arithmetic formulas, European Journal of Combinatorics 47 (2015), 40 – 53. [Hya79] Laurent Hyafil, On the parallel evaluation of multivariate polynomials, SIAM Journal on Computing 8 (1979), no. 2, 120–123. [Kru77] Joseph B. Kruskal, Three-way arrays: rank and uniqueness of trilinear decompositions, with application to arithmetic complexity and statistics, Linear Algebra and its Applications 18 (1977), no. 2, 95 – 138. [Lip94] Richard J. Lipton, Straight-line complexity and integer factorization, Algorithmic Number Theory (Berlin, Heidelberg) (Leonard M. Adleman and Ming-Deh Huang, eds.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1994, pp. 71–79. [May36] Karl Mayr, Über die lösung algebraischer gleichungssysteme durch hypergeometrische funktionen, Monatshefte für Mathe- matik und Physik 45 (1936), no. 1, 280–313. [Pol37] G. Polya, Kombinatorische anzahlbestimmungen fur gruppen, graphen und chemische verbindungen, Acta Math. 68 (1937), 145–254. [Pol40] G. Polya, Sur les types des propositions composées, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (1940), no. 3, 98–103. [Raz13] Ran Raz, Tensor-rank and lower bounds for arithmetic formulas, J. ACM 60 (2013), no. 6. [Red27] J. Howard Redfield, The theory of group-reduced distributions, American Journal of Mathematics 49 (1927), no. 3, 433–455. [Sha49] C. E. Shannon, The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits, The Bell System Technical Journal 28 (1949), no. 1, 59–98. [Str72] Volker Strassen, Berechnung und programm. i, Acta Inf. 1 (1972), no. 4, 320–335. [Stu00] Bernd Sturmfels, Solving algebraic equations in terms of a-hypergeometric series, Discrete Mathematics 210 (2000), no. 1, 171 – 181. [SY10] Amir Shpilka and Amir Yehudayoff, Arithmetic circuits: A survey of recent results and open questions, Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 5 (2010), no. 3–4, 207–388. [Syl52] James Joseph Sylvester, On the principles of the calculus of forms, Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal 7 (1852), 57–92. [Tur36] Alan M. Turing, On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 2 (1936), no. 42, 230–265. [VS81] L. G. Valiant and S. Skyum, Fast parallel computation of polynomials using few processors, Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1981 (Berlin, Heidelberg) (Jozef Gruska and Michal Chytil, eds.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1981, pp. 132–139. [Wig19] Avi Wigderson, Mathematics and computation: A theory revolutionizing technology and science, Princeton University Press, 2019. [Wol08] Paul R. Wolfson, George boole and the origins of invariant theory, Historia Mathematica 35 (2008), no. 1, 37 – 46.