computational complexity

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 617–670 | Cite as

Algebraic independence over positive characteristic: New criterion and applications to locally low-algebraic-rank circuits

  • Anurag Pandey
  • Nitin SaxenaEmail author
  • Amit Sinhababu


The motivation for this work (Pandey et al. 2016) comes from two problems: testing algebraic independence of arithmetic circuits over a field of small characteristic and generalizing the structural property of algebraic dependence used by Kumar, Saraf, CCC’16 to arbitrary fields. It is known that in the case of zero, or large characteristic, using a classical criterion based on the Jacobian, we get a randomized poly-time algorithm to test algebraic independence. Over small characteristic, the Jacobian criterion fails and there is no subexponential time algorithm known. This problem could well be conjectured to be in RP, but the current best algorithm puts it in NP\({^{\#{\rm P}}}\) (Mittmann, Saxena, Scheiblechner, Trans.AMS’14). Currently, even the case of two bivariate circuits over \({\mathbb{F}_2}\) is open. We come up with a natural generalization of Jacobian criterion that works over all characteristics. The new criterion is efficient if the underlying inseparable degree is promised to be a constant. This is a modest step toward the open question of fast independence testing, over finite fields, posed in (Dvir, Gabizon, Wigderson, FOCS’07). In a set of linearly dependent polynomials, any polynomial can be written as a linear combination of the polynomials forming a basis. The analogous property for algebraic dependence is false, but a property approximately in that spirit is named as “functional dependence” in Kumar, Saraf, CCC’16 and proved for zero or large characteristics. We show that functional dependence holds for arbitrary fields, thereby answering the open questions in Kumar, Saraf, CCC’16. Following them, we use the functional dependence lemma to prove the first exponential lower bound for locally low algebraic rank circuits for arbitrary fields (a model that strongly generalizes homogeneous depth-4 circuits). We also recover their quasipoly-time hitting-set for such models, for fields of characteristic smaller than the ones known before. Our results show that approximate functional dependence is indeed a more fundamental concept than the Jacobian as it is field independent. We achieve the former by first picking a “good” transcendence basis, then translating the circuits by new variables, and finally approximating them by truncating higher degree monomials. We give a tight analysis of the “degree” of approximation needed in the criterion. To get the locally low-algebraic-rank circuit applications, we follow the known shifted partial derivative-based methods.


independence transcendence finite field Hasse–Schmidt Jacobian differential inseparable degree circuit identity testing lower bound depth-4 shifted partials 

Subject classification

11T06 12Y05 68W30 68Q25 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. L. M. Adleman & H. W. Lenstra (1986). Finding irreducible polynomials over finite fields. In STOC, 350–355Google Scholar
  2. Manindra Agrawal, Sumanta Ghosh & Nitin Saxena (2017). Bootstrapping variables in algebraic circuits. Technical report, (To appear in 50th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2018)
  3. Manindra Agrawal, Chandan Saha, Ramprasad Saptharishi & Nitin Saxena (2016). Jacobian Hits Circuits: Hitting Sets, Lower Bounds for Depth-D Occur-k Formulas and Depth-3 Transcendence Degree-k Circuits. SIAM J. Comput. 45(4), 1533–1562. (Special issue for STOC 2011)Google Scholar
  4. Manindra Agrawal, Chandan Saha & Nitin Saxena (2013). Quasi-polynomial hitting-set for set-depth-\(\Delta \) formulas. In Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 321–330. ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. Manindra Agrawal & V. Vinay (2008). Arithmetic Circuits: A Chasm at Depth Four. In 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, 67–75Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, W., Strassen, V.: The complexity of partial derivatives. Theoretical Computer Science 22(3), 317–330 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Beecken, J. Mittmann & N. Saxena (2013). Algebraic Independence and Blackbox Identity Testing. Inf. Comput. 222, 2–19. (Special issue for ICALP 2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dario A Bini & Victor Pan (2012). Polynomial and matrix computations: fundamental algorithms. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  9. Nicolas Bourbaki (2013). Algebra II: Chapters 4-7. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  10. Peter Bürgisser, Michael Clausen & Amin Shokrollahi (2013). Algebraic complexity theory, volume 315. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  11. David A Cox, John Little & Donal O’Shea (2007). Ideals, varieties, and algorithms. Undergraduate Texts in MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  12. Laszlo Csanky (1976). Fast parallel matrix inversion algorithms. SIAM Journal on Computing 5(4), 618–623. (Conference version in FOCS 1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Radu Curticapean (2013). Counting Matchings of Size k Is #W[1]-Hard. In Automata, Languages, and Programming, 352–363. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. DeMillo, Richard A., Lipton, Richard J.: A probabilistic remark on algebraic program testing. Information Processing Letters 7(4), 193–195 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pranjal Dutta, Nitin Saxena & Amit Sinhababu (2017). Discovering the roots: Uniform closure results for algebraic classes under factoring. Technical report, (To appear in 50th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2018)
  16. Z. Dvir, A. Gabizon & A. Wigderson (2009a). Extractors and rank extractors for polynomial sources. Comput. Complex. 18(1), 1–58. (Conference version in FOCS 2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Z. Dvir, D. Gutfreund, G.N. Rothblum & S.P. Vadhan (2011). On Approximating the Entropy of Polynomial Mappings. In Innovations in Computer Science (ICS), 460–475Google Scholar
  18. Zeev Dvir (2009). Extractors for Varieties. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), 102–113Google Scholar
  19. Zeev Dvir, Swastik Kopparty, Shubhangi Saraf & Madhu Sudan (2013). Extensions to the method of multiplicities, with applications to Kakeya sets and mergers. SIAM Journal on Computing 42(6), 2305–2328. (Conference version in FOCS 2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zeev Dvir, Amir Shpilka & Amir Yehudayoff (2009b). Hardness-randomness tradeoffs for bounded depth arithmetic circuits. SIAM Journal on Computing 39(4), 1279–1293. (Conference version in STOC 2008)Google Scholar
  21. Richard Ehrenborg & Gian-Carlo Rota: Apolarity and canonical forms for homogeneous polynomials. European Journal of Combinatorics 14(3), 157–181 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Michael A Forbes (2014). Polynomial identity testing of read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  23. Michael A Forbes (2015). Deterministic divisibility testing via shifted partial derivatives. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on, 451–465. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  24. Krister Forsman (1992). Two Themes in Commutative Algebra: Algebraic Dependence and Kähler DifferentialsGoogle Scholar
  25. Keith O Geddes, Stephen R Czapor & George Labahn (1992). Algorithms for computer algebra. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  26. Guo, Zeyu, Saxena, Nitin, Sinhababu, Amit: Algebraic dependencies and PSPACE algorithms in approximative complexity. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 25, 19 (2018). (To appear in Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), 2018).Google Scholar
  27. Gupta, Ankit, Kamath, Pritish, Kayal, Neeraj, Saptharishi, Ramprasad: Arithmetic Circuits: A Chasm at Depth Three. 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2013, 26–29 October, 2013, pp. 578–587. CA, USA, Berkeley (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hasse, Helmut, Schmidt, Friedrich K.: Noch eine Begründung der Theorie der höheren Differentialquotienten in einem algebraischen Funktionenkörper einer Unbestimmten. (Nach einer brieflichen Mitteilung von F.K.Schmidt in Jena). Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 177, 215–223 (1937)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. L. Illusie (1994). Crystalline cohomology. In Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., volume 55, 43–70. Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991)Google Scholar
  30. I Martin Isaacs (1994). Algebra: a graduate course, volume 100. American Mathematical SocGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobi, C.G.J.: De determinantibus functionalibus. J. Reine Angew. Math. 22(4), 319–359 (1841)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nathan Jacobson (2012). Lectures in Abstract Algebra: III. Theory of Fields and Galois Theory, volume 32. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  33. K. A. Kalorkoti (1985). A Lower Bound for the Formula Size of Rational Functions. SIAM J. Comp. 14(3), 678–687. (Conference version in ICALP 1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Erich Kaltofen (1987). Single-factor Hensel lifting and its application to the straight-line complexity of certain polynomials. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 443–452. ACMGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaltofen, Erich: Factorization of polynomials given by straight-line programs. Randomness and Computation 5, 375–412 (1989)Google Scholar
  36. Erich Kaltofen (2003). Polynomial factorization: a success story. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (ISSAC’03), 3–4. ACMGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaltofen, Erich, Trager, Barry M.: Computing with polynomials given by black boxes for their evaluations: Greatest common divisors, factorization, separation of numerators and denominators. Journal of Symbolic Computation 9(3), 301–320 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. N. Kayal (2009). The Complexity of the Annihilating Polynomial. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), 184–193Google Scholar
  39. Neeraj Kayal, Nutan Limaye, Chandan Saha & Srikanth Srinivasan (2014a). An exponential lower bound for homogeneous depth four arithmetic formulas. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on, 61–70. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  40. Neeraj Kayal, Chandan Saha & Ramprasad Saptharishi (2014b). A super-polynomial lower bound for regular arithmetic formulas. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 146–153. ACMGoogle Scholar
  41. Gregor Kemper (2010). A course in Commutative Algebra, volume 256. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  42. Anthony W Knapp (2007). Advanced algebra. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  43. N. Koblitz (1984). P-adic Numbers, P-adic Analysis, and Zeta-Functions. Springer-Verlag, 2nd editionGoogle Scholar
  44. Steven G Krantz & Harold R Parks (2012). The implicit function theorem: history, theory, and applications. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin Kreuzer & Lorenzo Robbiano (2005). Computational commutative algebra 2. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  46. Mrinal Kumar & Shubhangi Saraf (2016). Arithmetic Circuits with Locally Low Algebraic Rank. In 31st Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2016, May 29 to June 1, 2016, Tokyo, Japan, 34:1–34:27Google Scholar
  47. Mrinal Kumar & Shubhangi Saraf (2017). On the Power of Homogeneous Depth 4 Arithmetic Circuits. SIAM J. Comput. 46(1), 336–387. (Conference version in FOCS 2014)Google Scholar
  48. Lindström, Bernt: On the algebraic characteristic set for a class of matroids. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 95(1), 147–151 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. M.S. L’vov, : Calculation of invariants of programs interpreted over an integrality domain. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 20, 492–499 (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Johannes Mittmann (2013). Independence in Algebraic Complexity Theory. Ph.D. thesis, Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek BonnGoogle Scholar
  51. Mittmann, Johannes, Saxena, Nitin, Scheiblechner, Peter: Algebraic independence in positive characteristic: A \(p\)-adic calculus. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 366(7), 3425–3450 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rafael Oliveira (2016). Factors of low individual degree polynomials. Computational Complexity 25(2), 507–561. (Special issue for CCC 2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. James G Oxley (2006). Matroid theory, volume 3. Oxford university pressGoogle Scholar
  54. Anurag Pandey, Nitin Saxena & Amit Sinhababu (2016). Algebraic Independence over Positive Characteristic: New Criterion and Applications to Locally Low Algebraic Rank Circuits. In 41st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, MFCS: August 22–26, 2016 - Kraków. Poland 74(1–74), 15 (2016)Google Scholar
  55. Perron, O.: Algebra I (Die Grundlagen). W. de Gruyter, Berlin (1927)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. A. Płoski (2005). Algebraic Dependence of Polynomials After O. Perron and Some Applications. In Computational Commutative and Non-Commutative Algebraic Geometry, 167–173. IOS pressGoogle Scholar
  57. Ran Raz (2008). Elusive functions and lower bounds for arithmetic circuits. In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 711–720. ACMGoogle Scholar
  58. Ramprasad Saptharishi (2016). A survey of lower bounds in arithmetic circuit complexity.
  59. Nitin Saxena (2014). Progress on polynomial identity testing-II. In Perspectives in Computational Complexity, 131–146. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwartz, J.T.: Fast Probabilistic Algorithms for Verification of Polynomial Identities. J. ACM 27(4), 701–717 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. David Shannon & Moss Sweedler: Using Gröbner bases to determine algebra membership, split surjective algebra homomorphisms determine birational equivalence. Journal of Symbolic Computation 6(2–3), 267–273 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. Shpilka, A., Yehudayoff, A.: Arithmetic Circuits: A survey of recent results and open questions. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 5(3–4), 207–388 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Volker Strassen (1973). Vermeidung von Divisionen. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 264, 184–202. URL
  64. Teichmüller, Oswald: Differentialrechnung bei Charakteristik p. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 175, 89–99 (1936)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. William Nathaniel Traves (1998). Differential operators and Nakai’s conjecture. Ph.D. thesis, National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale du CanadaGoogle Scholar
  66. Joachim Von Zur Gathen & Jürgen Gerhard (2013). Modern computer algebra. Cambridge university pressGoogle Scholar
  67. Richard Zippel (1979). Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials. SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceMPI for Informatics & Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Department of CSE, Indian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations