Algorithmica

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 47–75 | Cite as

Lower Bounds Against Weakly-Uniform Threshold Circuits

Article
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

An ongoing line of research has shown super-polynomial lower bounds for uniform and slightly-non-uniform small-depth threshold and arithmetic circuits (Allender, in Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1999(7), 1999; Koiran and Perifel, in Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2009), pp. 35–40, 2009; Jansen and Santhanam, in Proceedings of the 38th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2011), I, pp. 724–735, 2011).

We give a unified framework that captures and improves each of the previous results. Our main results are that Permanent does not have threshold circuits of the following kinds.
  1. (1)

    Depth O(1), no(1) bits of non-uniformity, and size nO(1).

     
  2. (2)

    Depth O(1), polylog(n) bits of non-uniformity, and size s(n) such that for all constants c the c-fold composition of s, s(c)(n), is less than 2n.

     
  3. (3)

    Depth o(loglogn), polylog(n) bits of non-uniformity, and size nO(1).

     
(1) strengthens a result of Jansen and Santhanam (Jansen and Santhanam, in Proceedings of the 38th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2011), I, pp. 724–735, 2011), who obtained similar parameters but for arithmetic circuits of constant depth rather than Boolean threshold circuits. (2) and (3) strengthen results of Allender (Allender, in Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1999(7), 1999) and Koiran and Perifel (Koiran and Perifel, in Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2009), pp. 35–40, 2009), respectively, who obtained results with similar parameters but for completely uniform circuits. Our main technical contribution is to simplify and unify earlier proofs in this area, and adapt the proofs to handle some amount of non-uniformity. We also develop a notion of circuits with a small amount of non-uniformity that naturally interpolates between fully uniform and fully non-uniform circuits. We use this notion, which we term weak uniformity, rather than the earlier and essentially equivalent notion of succinctness used by Jansen and Santhanam because the notion of weak uniformity more fully and easily interpolates between full uniformity and non-uniformity of circuits.

Keywords

Advice complexity classes Alternating Turing machines Counting hierarchy Permanent Succinct circuits Threshold circuits Uniform circuit lower bounds Weakly-uniform circuits 

References

  1. 1.
    Aaronson, S.: Oracles are subtle but not malicious. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2006), pp. 340–354 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal, M.: Proving lower bounds via pseudo-random generators. In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2005), pp. 92–105 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allender, E.: The permanent requires large uniform threshold circuits. Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1999(7) (1999) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allender, E., Gore, V.: A uniform circuit lower bound for the permanent. SIAM J. Comput. 23(5), 1026–1049 (1994) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arora, S., Barak, B.: Complexity Theory: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York (2009) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beigel, R., Tarui, J.: On ACC. Comput. Complex. 4, 350–366 (1994) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buhrman, H., Fortnow, L., Thierauf, T.: Nonrelativizing separations. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 1998), pp. 8–12 (1998) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chandra, A.K., Kozen, D.C., Stockmeyer, L.J.: Alternation. J. ACM 28(1), 114–133 (1981) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, R., Kabanets, V.: Lower bounds against weakly uniform circuits. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Computing and Combinatorics Conference (COCOON 2012), pp. 408–419 (2012) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furst, M., Saxe, J.B., Sipser, M.: Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Syst. Theory 17(1), 13–27 (1984) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green, F., Köbler, J., Regan, K.W., Schwentick, T., Toran, J.: The power of the middle bit of a #P function. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 50, 456–467 (1995) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Håstad, J.: Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1986), pp. 6–20 (1986) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heintz, J., Schnorr, C.P.: Testing polynomials which are easy to compute. Enseign. Math. 30, 237 (1982) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Homer, S., Mocas, S.: Nonuniform lower bounds for exponential time classes. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 1995), pp. 159–168 (1995) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iwama, K., Morizumi, H.: An explicit lower bound of 5no(n) for Boolean circuits. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2002), pp. 353–364 (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansen, M., Santhanam, R.: Permanent does not have succinct polynomial size arithmetic circuits of constant depth. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2011), I, pp. 724–735 (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kabanets, V., Impagliazzo, R.: Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds. Comput. Complex. 13(1–2), 1–46 (2004) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kannan, R.: Circuit-size lower bounds and non-reducibility to sparse sets. Inf. Control 55, 40–56 (1982) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karp, R.M., Lipton, R.J.: Turing machines that take advice. Enseign. Math. 28(3–4), 191–209 (1982) MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kinne, J.: On TC0 lower bounds for the permanent. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Computing and Combinatorics Conference (COCOON 2012), pp. 420–432 (2012) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koiran, P., Perifel, S.: A superpolynomial lower bound on the size of uniform non-constant-depth threshold circuits for the permanent. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2009), pp. 35–40 (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lachish, O., Raz, R.: Explicit lower bound of 4.5no(n) for Boolean circuits. In: Proceedings on 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2001), pp. 399–408 (2001) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lupanov, O.B.: On the synthesis of switching circuits. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 119(1), 23–26 (1958). English translation in Soviet Mathematics Doklady MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lynch, N.A.: Log space recognition and translation of parenthesis languages. J. ACM 24, 583–590 (1977) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miltersen, P.B., Vinodchandran, N.V., Watanabe, O.: Super-polynomial versus half-exponential circuit size in the exponential hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Computing and Combinatorics Conference (COCOON 1999), pp. 210–220 (1999) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mix-Barrington, D.A., Immerman, N., Straubing, H.: On uniformity within NC 1. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 41, 274–306 (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parberry, I., Schnitger, G.: Parallel computation with threshold functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36(3), 278–302 (1988) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pollett, C.: Languages to diagonalize against advice classes. Comput. Complex. 14, 341–361 (2006) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth circuits over a complete basis with logical addition. Math. Notes Acad. Sci. USSR 41, 333–338 (1987) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Razborov, A.A., Rudich, S.: Natural proofs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 24–35 (1997) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ruzzo, W.L.: On uniform circuit complexity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 22(3), 365–383 (1981) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shannon, C.E.: The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 28(1), 59–98 (1949) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smolensky, R.: Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for boolean circuit complexity. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1987), pp. 77–82 (1987) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Toda, S.: PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM J. Comput. 20(5), 865–877 (1991) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torán, J.: Complexity classes defined by counting quantifiers. J. ACM 38(3), 753–774 (1991) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of computing the permanent. Theor. Comput. Sci. 8, 189–201 (1979) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wagner, K.W.: The complexity of combinatorial problems with succinct input representation. Acta Inform. 23, 325–356 (1986) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams, R.: Non-uniform ACC circuit lower bounds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2011) (2011) Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yao, A.C.: Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles. In: 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1985), pp. 1–10 (1985) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zak, S.: A Turing machine time hierarchy. Theor. Comput. Sci. 26, 327–333 (1983) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zanko, V.: #P-Completeness via many-one reductions. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 2(1), 77–82 (1991) CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Indiana State UniversityTerre HauteUSA

Personalised recommendations