Advertisement

One-way functions and circuit complexity

  • R. B. Boppana
  • J. C. Lagarias
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 223)

Abstract

A finite function f is a mapping of {0,1} n into {0,1} m ∪{#}, where “#” is a symbol to be thought of as “undefined.” A family of finite functions is said to be one-way (in a circuit complexity sense) if it can be computed with polynomial size circuits, but no family of inverses of these functions can be computed with polynomial size circuits. In this paper we show that (provided functions that are not one-to-one are allowed) one-way functions exist if and only if the satisfiability problem SAT does not have polynomial size circuits.

A family of functions f i (x) can be checked if some family of polynomial size circuits with inputs x and y can determine if f i (x)=y. A family of functions f i (x) can be evaluated if some family of polynomial size circuits with input x can compute f i (x). Can all families of total functions that can be checked also be evaluated? We show that this is true if and only if the nonuniform versions of the complexity classes P and UPco-UP are equal.

A family of functions f i is one-way for constant depth circuits if f i can be computed with unbounded fan-in circuits of polynomial size and constant depth, but every family of inverses f i −1 cannot. In this paper we give two provably one-way functions (in fact permutations) for constant depth circuits. The second example has the stronger property that no bit of its inverse can be computed in polynomial size and constant depth.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5. References

  1. [AM]
    L. Adleman and K. Manders, “Reducibility, randomness, and intractibility,” Proceedings of 9th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1977, pp. 151–163.Google Scholar
  2. [A]
    M. Ajtai, “Σ11-formulae on finite structures,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 24, 1983, pp. 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [AW]
    M. Ajtai and A. Wigderson, “Deterministic simulation of probabilistic constant depth circuits,” Proceedings of 26th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1985, pp. 11–19.Google Scholar
  4. [Ba]
    D. Barrington, personal communication, December 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [BMx]
    M. Blum and S. Micali, “How to generate cryptographically strong sequences of pseudo random bits,” SIAM Journal on Computing 13, 1984, pp. 850–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Br]
    G. Brassard, “Relativized cryptography,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 29, 1983, pp. 877–894.Google Scholar
  7. [CSV]
    A. K. Chandra, L. Stockmeyer and U. Vishkin, “A complexity theory for unbounded fan-in parallelism,” Proceedings of 23rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1982, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  8. [C]
    S. A. Cook, “The complexity of theorem proving procedures,” Proceedings of 3rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1971, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
  9. [FSS]
    M. Furst, J. B. Saxe and M. Sipser, “Parity, circuits, and the polynomial time hierarchy,” Mathematical Systems Theory 17, 1984, pp. 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [GS]
    J. Grollman and A. L. Selman, “Complexity measures for public-key cryptosystems,” Proceedings of 25th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1984, pp. 495–503.Google Scholar
  11. [H1]
    J. Hastad, “Improved lower bounds for small depth circuits,” to appear in Proceedings of 18th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [H2]
    J. Hastad, “One-way permutations in NC 0,” preprint, February 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [I]
    N. Immerman, “Languages which capture complexity classes,” Proceedings of 15th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1983, pp. 347–354.Google Scholar
  14. [KL]
    R. M. Karp and R. J. Lipton, “Turing machines that take advice,” L'Enseignment Mathematique 28, 1982, pp. 191–209. (preliminary version appeared in “Some connections between non-uniform and uniform complexity classes,” Proceedings of 12th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1980, pp. 302–309.)Google Scholar
  15. [Le]
    L. A. Levin, “One-way functions and pseudorandom generators,” Proceedings of 17th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1985, pp. 363–365.Google Scholar
  16. [Lo]
    T. J. Long, “On γ-reducibility versus polynomial time many-one reducibility,” Proceedings of 11th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1979, pp. 278–287.Google Scholar
  17. [O]
    A. Odlyzko, “Discrete logarithms in finite fields and their cryptographic significance,” preprint.Google Scholar
  18. [Sa]
    J. E. Savage, The Complexity of Computing, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. [Se]
    A. Selman, “Remarks about natural self-reducible sets in NP and complexity measures for public key cryptosystems,” preprint.Google Scholar
  20. [V]
    L. Valiant, “Relative complexity of checking and evaluating,” Information Processing Letters 5, 1976, pp. 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Y1]
    A. C. Yao, “Theory and applications of trapdoor functions,” Proceedings of 23rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1982, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar
  22. [Y2]
    A. C. Yao, “Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles,” Proceedings of 26th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1985, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. Boppana
    • 1
  • J. C. Lagarias
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Computer ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge
  2. 2.AT&T Bell LaboratoriesMurray Hill

Personalised recommendations