Advertisement

Degree-uniform lower bound on the weights of polynomials with given sign function

  • Vladimir V. Podolskii
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

A Boolean function f: {0, 1} n → {0, 1} is called the sign function of an integer polynomial p of degree d in n variables if it is true that f(x) = 1 if and only if p(x) > 0. In this case the polynomial p is called a threshold gate of degree d for the function f. The weight of the threshold gate is the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients of p. For any n and dD\(\frac{{\varepsilon n^{1/5} }} {{\log n}} \) we construct a function f such that there is a threshold gate of degree d for f, but any threshold gate for f of degree at most D has weight \(2^{(\delta n)^d /D^{4d} } \), where ɛ > 0 and δ > 0 are some constants. In particular, if D is constant, then any threshold gate of degree D for our function has weight \(2^{\Omega (n^d )} \). Previously, functions with these properties have been known only for d = 1 (and arbitrary D) and for D = d. For constant d our functions are computable by polynomial size DNFs. The best previous lower bound on the weights of threshold gates for such functions was 2Ω(n). Our results can also be translated to the case of functions f: {−1, 1} n → {−1, 1}.

Keywords

STEKLOV Institute Boolean Function Maximal Element Ordinal Number Disjunctive Normal Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Beigel, “The Polynomial Method in Circuit Complexity,” in Structure in Complexity Theory: Proc. Eighth Annu. Conf., San Diego, CA, 1993 (IEEE Computer Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1993), pp. 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Beigel, “Perceptrons, PP, and the Polynomial Hierarchy,” Comput. Complexity 4(4), 339–349 (1994).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Bruck, “Harmonic Analysis of Polynomial Threshold Functions,” SIAM J. Discrete Math. 3(2), 168–177 (1990).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Goldmann, “On the Power of a Threshold Gate at the Top,” Inf. Process. Lett. 63(6), 287–293 (1997).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Hajnal, W. Maass, P. Pudlák, M. Szegedy, and G. Turán, “Threshold Circuits of Bounded Depth,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 46(2), 129–154 (1993).zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Håstad, “On the Size of Weights for Threshold Gates,” SIAM J. Discrete Math. 7(3), 484–492 (1994).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. R. Klivans and R. A. Servedio, “Learning DNF in Time \(2^{\tilde O(n^{1/3} )} \),” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 68(2), 303–318 (2004).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Krause and P. Pudlák, “Computing Boolean Functions by Polynomials and Threshold Circuits,” Comput. Complexity 7(4), 346–370 (1998).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. L. Minsky and S. A. Papert, Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Muroga, Threshold Logic and Its Applications (Wiley-Intersci., New York, 1971).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Myhill and W. H. Kautz, “On the Size of Weights Required for Linear-Input Switching Functions,” IRE Trans. Electron. Comput. EC10(2), 288–290 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. V. Podolskii, “A Uniform Lower Bound on Weights of Perceptrons,” in Computer Science-Theory and Applications: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. CSR 2008, Moscow, Russia, June 7–12, 2008 (Springer, Berlin, 2008), Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 5010, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. V. Podolskii, “Perceptrons of Large Weight,” Probl. Peredachi Inf. 45(1), 51–59 (2009) [Probl. Inf. Transm. 45, 46–53 (2009)].MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. A. Razborov, “On Small Depth Threshold Circuits,” in Algorithm Theory: Proc. Third Scand. Workshop, Helsinki, July 8–10, 1992 (Springer, Berlin, 1992), Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 621, pp. 42–52.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. E. Saks, “Slicing the Hypercube,” in Surveys in Combinatorics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993), LMS Lect. Note Ser. 187, pp. 211–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. A. Sherstov, “Communication Lower Bounds Using Dual Polynomials,” Bull. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 95, 59–93 (2008).MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steklov Mathematical InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations