Abstract
The Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) asks if a given truth table of a Boolean function f can be computed by a Boolean circuit of size at most θ, for a given parameter θ. We improve several circuit lower bounds for MCSP, using pseudorandom generators (PRGs) that are local; a PRG is called local if its output bit strings, when viewed as the truth table of a Boolean function, can be computed by a Boolean circuit of small size. We get new and improved lower bounds for MCSP that almost match the best-known lower bounds against several circuit models. Specifically, we show that computing MCSP, on functions with a truth table of length N, requires
• N3−o(1)-size de Morgan formulas, improving the recent N2−o(1) lower bound by Hirahara and Santhanam (CCC, 2017),
• N2−o(1)-size formulas over an arbitrary basis or general branching programs (no non-trivial lower bound was known for MCSP against these models), and
• 2Ω(N1/(d+1.01))-size depth-d AC0 circuits, improving the (implicit, in their work) exponential size lower bound by Allender et al. (SICOMP, 2006).
The AC0 lower bound stated above matches the best-known AC0 lower bound (for PARITY) up to a small additive constant in the depth. Also, for the special case of depth-2 circuits (i.e., CNFs or DNFs), we get an optimal lower bound of 2Ω(N) for MCSP.
- Miklós Ajtai and Avi Wigderson. 1989. Deterministic simulation of probabilistic constant depth circuits. Adv. Comput. Res. 5 (1989), 199--222. DOI:10.1109/SFCS.1985.19Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Eric Allender, Harry Buhrman, Michal Koucký, Dieter van Melkebeek, and Detlef Ronneburger. 2006. Power from random strings. SIAM J. Comput. 35, 6 (2006), 1467--1493. DOI:10.1137/050628994Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marco L. Carmosino, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Antonina Kolokolova. 2016. Learning algorithms from natural proofs. In Proceedings of CCC. 10:1--10:24.Google Scholar
- Eshan Chattopadhyay, Pooya Hatami, Kaave Hosseini, and Shachar Lovett. 2018. Pseudorandom generators from polarizing random walks. In Proceedings of CCC. 1:1--1:21.Google Scholar
- Mary Cryan and Peter Bro Miltersen. 2001. On pseudorandom generators in . In Proceedings of MFCS. 272--284. DOI:10.1007/3-540-44683-4_24Google Scholar
- Anindya De, Omid Etesami, Luca Trevisan, and Madhur Tulsiani. 2010. Improved pseudorandom generators for depth 2 circuits. In Proceedings of APPROX/RANDOM. 504--517.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Irit Dinur and Or Meir. 2018. Toward the KRW composition conjecture: Cubic formula lower bounds via communication complexity. Comput. Complex. 27, 3 (2018), 375--462. DOI:10.1007/s00037-017-0159-xGoogle Scholar
Digital Library
- Sergey B. Gashkov and Igor S. Sergeev. 2013. Complexity of computation in finite fields. J. Math. Sci. 191, 5 (2013), 661--685. DOI:10.1007/s10958-013-1350-5Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Alexander Golovnev, Rahul Ilango, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, and Avishay Tal. 2019. AC0[p] lower bounds against MCSP via the coin problem. In Proceedings of ICALP. 66:1--66:15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.66Google Scholar
- Johan Håstad. 1986. Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In Proceedings of STOC. DOI:10.1145/12130.12132Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Johan Håstad. 1998. The shrinkage exponent of de Morgan formulas is 2. SIAM J. Comput. 27, 1 (1998), 48--64. DOI:10.1137/S0097539794261556Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Shuichi Hirahara. 2018. Non-black-box worst-case to average-case reductions within NP. In Proceedings of FOCS. 247--258. ECCC:TR18-136.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Shuichi Hirahara and Rahul Santhanam. 2017. On the average-case complexity of MCSP and its variants. In Proceedings of CCC. 7:1--7:20. DOI:10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2017.7Google Scholar
- Russell Impagliazzo, Raghu Meka, and David Zuckerman. 2019. Pseudorandomness from shrinkage. J. ACM 66, 2 (2019), 11:1--11:16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3230630Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Stasys Jukna. 2012. Boolean Function Complexity—Advances and Frontiers. Algorithms and combinatorics, Vol. 27. Springer.Google Scholar
- Valentine Kabanets and Jin-yi Cai. 2000. Circuit minimization problem. In Proceedings of STOC. 73--79.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Shachar Lovett and Srikanth Srinivasan. 2011. Correlation bounds for poly-size AC0 circuits with n1−o(1) symmetric gates. In Proceedings of APPROX/RANDOM. 640--651. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-22935-0_54Google Scholar
- Michael Luby, Boban Velickovic, and Avi Wigderson. 1993. Deterministic approximate counting of depth-2 circuits. In Proceedings of ISTCS. 18--24. DOI:10.1109/ISTCS.1993.253488Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- E. I. Nechiporuk. 1966. On a Boolean function. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 169, 4 (1966), 765--766.Google Scholar
- Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. 1994. Hardness vs randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49, 2 (1994), 149--167. DOI:10.1016/S0022-0000(05)80043-1Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Noam Nisan and David Zuckerman. 1996. Randomness is linear in space. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 52, 1 (1996), 43--52. DOI:10.1006/jcss.1996.0004Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Igor Carboni Oliveira, Ján Pich, and Rahul Santhanam. 2018. Hardness magnification near state-of-the-art lower bounds. Electr. Colloq. Comput. Complex. 25 (2018), 158.Google Scholar
- Igor Carboni Oliveira and Rahul Santhanam. 2017. Conspiracies between learning algorithms, circuit lower bounds, and pseudorandomness. In Proceedings of CCC. 18:1--18:49.Google Scholar
- Igor Carboni Oliveira and Rahul Santhanam. 2018. Hardness magnification for natural problems. In Proceedings of FOCS. 65--76. ECCC:TR18-139.Google Scholar
- Rocco A. Servedio and Li-Yang Tan. 2018. Luby-Velickovic-Wigderson revisited: Improved correlation bounds and pseudorandom generators for depth-two circuits. In Proceedings of APPROX/RANDOM. 56:1--56:20.Google Scholar
- Claude E. Shannon. 1949. The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 28 (1949), 59--98. DOI:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1949.tb03624.xGoogle Scholar
Cross Ref
- Avishay Tal. 2014. Shrinkage of De Morgan formulae by spectral techniques. In Proceedings of FOCS. 551--560. ECCC: TR14-048.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Avishay Tal. 2017. Formula lower bounds via the quantum method. In Proceedings of STOC. 1256--1268. DOI:10.1145/3055399.3055472Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Avishay Tal. 2017. Tight bounds on the fourier spectrum of . In Proceedings of CCC. 15:1--15:31. ECCC:TR14-174.Google Scholar
- Boris A. Trakhtenbrot. 1984. A survey of russian approaches to perebor (brute-force searches) algorithms. IEEE Ann. History Comput. 6, 4 (1984), 384--400. DOI:10.1109/MAHC.1984.10036Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Luca Trevisan and Tongke Xue. 2013. A derandomized switching lemma and an improved derandomization of . In Proceedings of CCC. 242--247. ECCC:TR12-116.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Salil P. Vadhan. 2012. Pseudorandomness. Found. Trends Theoret. Comput. Sci. 7, 1–3 (2012), 1--336. DOI:10.1561/0400000010Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Emanuele Viola. 2007. Pseudorandom bits for constant-depth circuits with few arbitrary symmetric gates. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 5 (2007), 1387--1403. DOI:10.1109/CCC.2005.25Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joachim von zur Gathen and Jürgen Gerhard. 2013. Modern Computer Algebra. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ingo Wegener. 1987. The Complexity of Boolean Functions. Wiley-Teubner. Retrieved from http://ls2-www.cs.uni-dortmund.de/monographs/bluebook/.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators
Recommendations
Nondeterministic circuit lower bounds from mildly derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games
In several settings, derandomization is known to follow from circuit lower bounds that themselves are equivalent to the existence of pseudorandom generators. This leaves open the question whether derandomization implies the circuit lower bounds that are ...
Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds
We show that derandomizing Polynomial Identity Testing is essentially equivalent to proving arithmetic circuit lower bounds for NEXP. More precisely, we prove that if one can test in polynomial time (or even nondeterministic subexponential time, ...
Nondeterministic Circuit Lower Bounds from Mildly De-randomizing Arthur-Merlin Games
CCC '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC)Hardness against nondeterministic circuits is known to suffice for derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games. We show a result in the other direction - that hardness against nondeterministic circuits is *necessary* for derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games. In fact,...






Comments