Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mining Circuit Lower Bound Proofs for Meta-Algorithms

  • Published:
computational complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We show that circuit lower bound proofs based on the method of random restrictions yield non-trivial compression algorithms for “easy” Boolean functions from the corresponding circuit classes. The compression problem is defined as follows: given the truth table of an n-variate Boolean function f computable by some unknown small circuit from a known class of circuits, find in deterministic time poly(2n) a circuit C (no restriction on the type of C) computing f so that the size of C is less than the trivial circuit size \({2^n/n}\). We get non-trivial compression for functions computable by AC 0 circuits, (de Morgan) formulas, and (read-once) branching programs of the size for which the lower bounds for the corresponding circuit class are known.

These compression algorithms rely on the structural characterizations of “easy” functions, which are useful both for proving circuit lower bounds and for designing “meta-algorithms” (such as Circuit-SAT). For (de Morgan) formulas, such structural characterization is provided by the “shrinkage under random restrictions” results by Subbotovskaya (Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 136(3):553–555, 1961) and Håstad (SIAM J Comput 27:48–64, 1998), strengthened to the “high-probability” version by Santhanam (Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp 183–192, 2010), Impagliazzo, Meka & Zuckerman (Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp 111–119, 2012b), and Komargodski & Raz (Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 171–180, 2013). We give a new, simple proof of the “high-probability” version of the shrinkage result for (de Morgan) formulas, with improved parameters. We use this shrinkage result to get both compression and #SAT algorithms for (de Morgan) formulas of size about n 2. We also use this shrinkage result to get an alternative proof of the result by Komargodski & Raz (Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 171–180, 2013) of the average-case lower bound against small (de Morgan) formulas.

Finally, we show that the existence of any non-trivial compression algorithm for a circuit class \({\mathcal{C} \subseteq \mathsf{P}/ \mathsf{poly}}\) would imply the circuit lower bound \({\mathsf{NEXP} \not \subseteq \mathcal{C}}\) ; a similar implication is independently proved also by Williams (Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 21–30, 2013). This complements the result by Williams (Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp 231–240, 2010) that any non-trivial Circuit-SAT algorithm for a circuit class \({\mathcal{C}}\) would imply a superpolynomial lower bound against \({\mathcal{C}}\) for a language in NEXP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • M. Agrawal (2005). Proving lower bounds via pseudo-random generators. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, 92–105.

  • Allender E., Hellerstein L., McCabe P., Pitassi T., Saks M.E. (2008) Minimizing Disjunctive Normal Form Formulas and AC0 Circuits Given a Truth Table. SIAM Journal on Computing 38(1): 63–84

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Alon N., Goldreich O., Håstad J., Peralta R. (1992) Simple Constructions of Almost k−wise Independent Random Variables. Random Structures and Algorithms 3(3): 289–304

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Andreev A.E. (1987) On a method of obtaining more than quadratic effective lower bounds for the complexity of π-schemes. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Matematika 42(1): 70–73 English translation in Moscow University Mathematics Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • A.E. Andreev, J. L. Baskakov, A. E. F. Clementi & J. D. P. Rolim (1999). Small Pseudo-Random Sets Yield Hard Functions: New Tight Explict Lower Bounds for Branching Programs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, 179–189.

  • S. Arora & B. Barak (2009). Complexity theory: a modern approach. Cambridge University Press, New York.

  • Bazzi L. (2009) Polylogarithmic Independence Can Fool DNF Formulas. SIAM Journal on Computing 38(6): 2220–2272

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • P. Beame (1994). A switching lemma primer. Technical report, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington.

  • P. Beame, R. Impagliazzo & S. Srinivasan (2012). Approximating AC 0 by Small Height Decision Trees and a Deterministic Algorithm for #AC 0 SAT. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 117–125.

  • S.J. Berkowitz (1982). On some relationships between monotone and non-monotone circuit complexity. Technical report, University of Toronto.

  • M. Blum & S. Micali (1984). How to generate cryptographically strong sequences of pseudo-random bits. SIAM Journal on Computing 13, 850–864.

  • R. B. Boppana & M. Sipser (1990). The complexity of finite functions. In Handbook of theoretical computer science (vol. A), J. van Leeuwen, editor, 757–804. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  • M. Braverman (2010). Polylogarithmic independence fools AC 0 circuits. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 57, 28:1–28:10.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • C. Calabro, R. Impagliazzo & R. Paturi (2009). The Complexity of Satisfiability of Small Depth Circuits. In Parameterized and Exact Computation, 4th International Workshop, IWPEC 2009, 75–85.

  • R. Chen, V. Kabanets & N. Saurabh (2014). An Improved Deterministic #SAT Algorithm for Small De Morgan Formulas. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, 165–176.

  • Chvátal V. (1979) A greedy heuristic for the set covering problem. Mathematics of Operations Research 4: 233–235

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • S.A. Cook (1971). The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 151–158.

  • E. Dantsin & E.A. Hirsch (2009). Worst-Case Upper Bounds. In Handbook of Satisfiability, 403–424. IOS Press.

  • V. Feldman (2009). Hardness of approximate two-level logic minimization and PAC learning with membership queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 75(1), 13–26.

  • L. Fortnow & A.R. Klivans (2006). Efficient Learning Algorithms Yield Circuit Lower Bounds. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference on Learning Theory, 350–363.

  • Furst M., Saxe J.B., Sipser M. (1984) Parity, Circuits, and the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy. Mathematical Systems Theory 17(1): 13–27

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • A. Gabizon & R. Shaltiel (2012). Invertible Zero-Error Dispersers and Defective Memory with Stuck-At Errors. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM, volume 7408 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 553–564. Springer-Verlag.

  • P. Gopalan & R. A. Servedio (2010). Learning and lower bounds for AC 0 with threshold gates. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM, volume 6302 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 588–601. Springer-Verlag.

  • J. Håstad (1986). Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 6–20.

  • J. Håstad (1998). The shrinkage exponent of de Morgan formulae is 2. SIAM Journal on Computing 27, 48–64.

  • J. Håstad, R. Impagliazzo, L. Levin & M. Luby (1999). A pseudorandom generator from any one-way function. SIAM Journal on Computing 28, 1364–1396.

  • J. Heintz & C.-P. Schnorr (1982). Testing polynomials which are easy to compute. L’Enseignement Mathématique 30, 237–254.

  • R. Impagliazzo, V. Kabanets & A. Wigderson (2002). In search of an easy witness: Exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 65(4), 672–694.

  • R. Impagliazzo, W. Matthews & R. Paturi (2012a). A satisfiability algorithm for AC 0. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 961–972.

  • R. Impagliazzo, R. Meka & D. Zuckerman (2012b). Pseudorandomness from shrinkage. In Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 111–119.

  • R. Impagliazzo & A. Wigderson (1997). P=BPP if E requires exponential circuits: Derandomizing the XOR Lemma. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 220–229.

  • Johnson D.S. (1974) Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9: 256–278

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • S. Jukna (2012). Boolean Function Complexity: Advances and Frontiers. Springer.

  • Kabanets V. (2001) Easiness Assumptions and Hardness Tests: Trading Time for Zero Error. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 63(2): 236–252

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • V. Kabanets & J.-Y. Cai (2000). Circuit Minimization Problem. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 73–79.

  • V. Kabanets & R. Impagliazzo (2004). Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds. Computational Complexity 13(1–2), 1–46.

  • Kannan R. (1982) Circuit-size lower bounds and non-reducibility to sparse sets. Information and Control 55: 40–56

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • G. Karakostas, J. Kinne & D. van Melkebeek (2012). On derandomization and average-case complexity of monotone functions. Theoretical Computer Science 434, 35–44.

  • I. Komargodski & R. Raz (2013). Average-case lower bounds for formula size. In Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 171–180.

  • I. Komargodski, R. Raz & A. Tal (2013). Improved Average-Case Lower Bounds for DeMorgan Formula Size. In Proceedings of the Fifty-Fourth Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 588–597.

  • Levin L. (1973) Universal sorting problems. Problems of Information Transmission 9: 265–266

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Linial, Y. Mansour & N. Nisan (1993). Constant Depth Circuits, Fourier Transform and Learnability. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 40(3), 607–620.

  • Lovász L. (1975) On the ratio of optimal integral and fractional covers. Discrete Mathematics 13: 383–390

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • O.B. Lupanov (1958). On the synthesis of switching circuits. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 119(1), 23–26. English translation in Soviet Mathematics Doklady.

  • W.J. Masek (1979). Some NP-complete set covering problems. Manuscript.

  • E.I. Nechiporuk (1966). On a Boolean function. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 169(4), 765–766. English translation in Soviet Mathematics Doklady.

  • N. Nisan & A. Wigderson (1994). Hardness vs. Randomness. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 49, 149–167.

  • M. Paterson & U. Zwick (1993). Shrinkage of de Morgan Formulae under Restriction. Random Structures and Algorithms 4(2), 135–150.

  • N. Pippenger (1977). The complexity of monotone boolean functions. Theory of Computing Systems 11, 289–316. ISSN 1432-4350.

  • A. Rao (2009). Extractors for Low-Weight Affine Sources. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 95–101.

  • Razborov A.A. (1987) Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth circuits over a complete basis with logical addition. Mathematical Notes 41: 333–338

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • A.A. Razborov (1993). Bounded arithmetic and lower bounds in boolean complexity. In Feasible Mathematics II, 344–386. Birkhauser.

  • A.A. Razborov & S. Rudich (1997). Natural proofs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 55, 24–35.

  • N.P. Red’kin (1979). On the realization of monotone Boolean functions by contact circuits.Problemy Kibernetiki 35, 87–110. (in Russian).

  • R. Santhanam (2010). Fighting Perebor: New and Improved Algorithms for Formula and QBF Satisfiability. In Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 183–192.

  • P. Savický & S. Zák (1996). A large lower bound for 1-branching programs. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity TR96-036.

  • K. Seto & S. Tamaki (2012). A Satisfiability Algorithm and Average-Case Hardness for Formulas over the Full Binary Basis. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 107–116.

  • R. Smolensky (1987). Algebraic Methods in the Theory of Lower Bounds for Boolean Circuit Complexity. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 77–82.

  • B.A. Subbotovskaya (1961). Realizations of linear function by formulas using ∨, &, −. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 136(3), 553–555. English translation in Soviet Mathematics Doklady.

  • M. Sudan, L. Trevisan & S. Vadhan (2001). Pseudorandom generators without the XOR lemma. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 62(2), 236–266.

  • M. Tulsiani & J. Wolf (2011). Quadratic Goldreich-Levin Theorems. In Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 619–628.

  • I. Wegener (1987). The Complexity of Boolean Functions. J. Wiley, New York.

  • R. Williams (2010). Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds. In Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 231–240.

  • R. Williams (2011). Non-uniform ACC circuit lower bounds. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 115–125.

  • R. Williams (2013). Natural Proofs Versus Derandomization. In Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 21–30.

  • S.V. Yablonski (1959). On the impossibility of eliminating PEREBOR in solving some problems of circuit theory. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 124(1), 44–47. English translation in Soviet Mathematics Doklady.

  • A.C. Yao (1982). Theory and applications of trapdoor functions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 80–91.

  • A.C. Yao (1985). Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1–10.

  • F. Zane (1998). Circuits, CNFs, and Satisfiability. Ph.D. thesis, UCSD.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

    Ruiwen Chen & Valentine Kabanets

  2. Department of Computer Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Antonina Kolokolova

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Ronen Shaltiel

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    David Zuckerman

Authors
  1. Ruiwen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valentine Kabanets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonina Kolokolova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronen Shaltiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Zuckerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruiwen Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, R., Kabanets, V., Kolokolova, A. et al. Mining Circuit Lower Bound Proofs for Meta-Algorithms. comput. complex. 24, 333–392 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00037-015-0100-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00037-015-0100-0

Keywords

Subject classification

Search

Navigation