skip to main content
research-article

Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 July 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Johan Håstad. 1986. Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In Proceedings of STOC. DOI:10.1145/12130.12132Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Johan Håstad. 1998. The shrinkage exponent of de Morgan formulas is 2. SIAM J. Comput. 27, 1 (1998), 48--64. DOI:10.1137/S0097539794261556Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Shuichi Hirahara. 2018. Non-black-box worst-case to average-case reductions within NP. In Proceedings of FOCS. 247--258. ECCC:TR18-136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stasys Jukna. 2012. Boolean Function Complexity—Advances and Frontiers. Algorithms and combinatorics, Vol. 27. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Valentine Kabanets and Jin-yi Cai. 2000. Circuit minimization problem. In Proceedings of STOC. 73--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. E. I. Nechiporuk. 1966. On a Boolean function. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 169, 4 (1966), 765--766.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Igor Carboni Oliveira and Rahul Santhanam. 2018. Hardness magnification for natural problems. In Proceedings of FOCS. 65--76. ECCC:TR18-139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Avishay Tal. 2014. Shrinkage of De Morgan formulae by spectral techniques. In Proceedings of FOCS. 551--560. ECCC: TR14-048.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Avishay Tal. 2017. Formula lower bounds via the quantum method. In Proceedings of STOC. 1256--1268. DOI:10.1145/3055399.3055472Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Avishay Tal. 2017. Tight bounds on the fourier spectrum of . In Proceedings of CCC. 15:1--15:31. ECCC:TR14-174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Salil P. Vadhan. 2012. Pseudorandomness. Found. Trends Theoret. Comput. Sci. 7, 1–3 (2012), 1--336. DOI:10.1561/0400000010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Joachim von zur Gathen and Jürgen Gerhard. 2013. Modern Computer Algebra. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Ingo Wegener. 1987. The Complexity of Boolean Functions. Wiley-Teubner. Retrieved from http://ls2-www.cs.uni-dortmund.de/monographs/bluebook/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Circuit Lower Bounds for MCSP from Local Pseudorandom Generators

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!