FCT 2015: Fundamentals of Computation Theory pp 106-117 | Cite as
Constructive Relationships Between Algebraic Thickness and Normality
Abstract
We study the relationship between two measures of Boolean functions; algebraic thickness and normality. For a function f, the algebraic thickness is a variant of the sparsity, the number of nonzero coefficients in the unique \(\mathbb {F}_2\) polynomial representing f, and the normality is the largest dimension of an affine subspace on which f is constant. We show that for \(0 < \epsilon <2\), any function with algebraic thickness \(n^{3-\epsilon }\) is constant on some affine subspace of dimension \(\varOmega \left( n^{\frac{\epsilon }{2}}\right) \). Furthermore, we give an algorithm for finding such a subspace. We show that this is at most a factor of \(\varTheta (\sqrt{n})\) from the best guaranteed, and when restricted to the technique used, is at most a factor of \(\varTheta (\sqrt{\log n})\) from the best guaranteed. We also show that a concrete function, majority, has algebraic thickness \(\varOmega \left( 2^{n^{1/6}}\right) \).
References
- 1.Boyar, J., Find, M., Peralta, R.: Four measures of nonlinearity. In: Spirakis, P.G., Serna, M.J. (eds.) CIAC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7878, pp. 61–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Boyar, J., Find, M.G.: Constructive relationships between algebraic thickness and normality. CoRR abs/1410.1318 (2014)Google Scholar
- 3.Boyar, J., Peralta, R., Pochuev, D.: On the multiplicative complexity of boolean functions over the basis (\(\wedge,\oplus \), 1). Theor. Comput. Sci. 235(1), 43–57 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 4.Carlet, C.: On cryptographic complexity of boolean functions. In: Mullen, G., Stichtenoth, H., Tapia-Recillas, H. (eds.) Finite Fields with Applications to Coding Theory, Cryptography and Related Areas, pp. 53–69. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Carlet, C.: On the algebraic thickness and non-normality of boolean functions. In: Information Theory Workshop, pp. 147–150. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Carlet, C.: On the degree, nonlinearity, algebraic thickness, and nonnormality of boolean functions, with developments on symmetric functions. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 50(9), 2178–2185 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Carlet, C.: The complexity of boolean functions from cryptographic viewpoint. In: Krause, M., Pudlàk, P., Reischuk, R., van Melkebeek, D. (eds.) Complexity of Boolean Functions. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 06111. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
- 8.Carlet, C.: Boolean functions for cryptography and error correcting codes. In: Crama, Y., Hammer, P.L. (eds.) Boolean Models and Methods in Mathematics, Computer Science, and Engineering, pp. 257–397. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Charpin, P.: Normal boolean functions. J. Complexity 20(2–3), 245–265 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 10.Cohen, G., Tal, A.: Two structural results for low degree polynomials and applications. CoRR abs/1404.0654 (2014)Google Scholar
- 11.Dickson, L.E.: Linear Groups with an Exposition of the Galois Field Theory. Teubner’s Sammlung von Lehrbuchern auf dem Gebiete der matematischen Wissenschaften VL, x+312 (1901)Google Scholar
- 12.Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 13.Johnson, D.S.: Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 9(3), 256–278 (1974)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Jukna, S.: Boolean Function Complexity - Advances and Frontiers. Algorithms and combinatorics, vol. 27. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
- 15.Knudsen, L.R.: Truncated and higher order differentials. In: Preneel, B. (ed.) Fast Software Encryption. LNCS, vol. 1008, pp. 196–211. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Lai, X.: Higher order derivatives and differential cryptanalysis. In: Blahut, R.E., Costello Jr, D.J., Maurer, U., Mittelholzer, T. (eds.) Communications and Cryptography. The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 276, pp. 227–233. Springer, US (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Meier, W., Staffelbach, O.: Nonlinearity criteria for cryptographic functions. In: Quisquater, J.-J., Vandewalle, J. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 1989. LNCS, vol. 434, pp. 549–562. Springer, Heidelberg (1990) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Menezes, A., van Oorschot, P.C., Vanstone, S.A.: Handbook of Applied Cryptography. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mihaljevic, M.J., Gangopadhyay, S., Paul, G., Imai, H.: Generic cryptographic weakness of k-normal boolean functions in certain stream ciphers and cryptanalysis of grain-128. Periodica Mathematica Hungarica 65(2), 205–227 (2012)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 20.Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth circuits over a complete basis with logical addition. Math. Notes 41(4), 333–338 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 21.Rothaus, O.S.: On “bent" functions. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 20(3), 300–305 (1976)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- 22.Shaltiel, R.: Dispersers for affine sources with sub-polynomial entropy. In: Ostrovsky, R. (ed.) FOCS. pp. 247–256. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
- 23.Subbotovskaya, B.A.: Realizations of linear functions by formulas using +,*,-. Math. Dokl. 2(3), 110–112 (1961)MATHGoogle Scholar