Fourier and Circulant Matrices Are Not Rigid

Authors Zeev Dvir, Allen Liu

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.59 MB
  • 23 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Zeev Dvir
  • Department of Computer Science and Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, NJ, USA
Allen Liu
  • Department of Mathematics, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Zeev Dvir and Allen Liu. Fourier and Circulant Matrices Are Not Rigid. In 34th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2019). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 137, pp. 17:1-17:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019)


The concept of matrix rigidity was first introduced by Valiant in [Friedman, 1993]. Roughly speaking, a matrix is rigid if its rank cannot be reduced significantly by changing a small number of entries. There has been extensive interest in rigid matrices as Valiant showed in [Friedman, 1993] that rigidity can be used to prove arithmetic circuit lower bounds. In a surprising result, Alman and Williams showed that the (real valued) Hadamard matrix, which was conjectured to be rigid, is actually not very rigid. This line of work was extended by [Dvir and Edelman, 2017] to a family of matrices related to the Hadamard matrix, but over finite fields. In our work, we take another step in this direction and show that for any abelian group G and function f:G - > {C}, the matrix given by M_{xy} = f(x - y) for x,y in G is not rigid. In particular, we get that complex valued Fourier matrices, circulant matrices, and Toeplitz matrices are all not rigid and cannot be used to carry out Valiant’s approach to proving circuit lower bounds. This complements a recent result of Goldreich and Tal [Goldreich and Tal, 2016] who showed that Toeplitz matrices are nontrivially rigid (but not enough for Valiant’s method). Our work differs from previous non-rigidity results in that those works considered matrices whose underlying group of symmetries was of the form {F}_p^n with p fixed and n tending to infinity, while in the families of matrices we study, the underlying group of symmetries can be any abelian group and, in particular, the cyclic group {Z}_N, which has very different structure. Our results also suggest natural new candidates for rigidity in the form of matrices whose symmetry groups are highly non-abelian. Our proof has four parts. The first extends the results of [Josh Alman and Ryan Williams, 2016; Dvir and Edelman, 2017] to generalized Hadamard matrices over the complex numbers via a new proof technique. The second part handles the N x N Fourier matrix when N has a particularly nice factorization that allows us to embed smaller copies of (generalized) Hadamard matrices inside of it. The third part uses results from number theory to bootstrap the non-rigidity for these special values of N and extend to all sufficiently large N. The fourth and final part involves using the non-rigidity of the Fourier matrix to show that the group algebra matrix, given by M_{xy} = f(x - y) for x,y in G, is not rigid for any function f and abelian group G.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Computational complexity and cryptography
  • Theory of computation
  • Rigidity
  • Fourier matrix
  • Circulant matrix


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Josh Alman and Ryan Williams. Probabilistic Rank and Matrix Rigidity. CoRR, abs/1611.05558, 2016. URL:
  2. R. Baker and G. Harman. Shifted primes without large prime factors. Acta Arithmetica, 83(4):331-361, 1998. Google Scholar
  3. Zeev Dvir and Benjamin Edelman. Matrix rigidity and the Croot-Lev-Pach lemma. arXiv preprint, 2017. URL:
  4. Joel Friedman. A note on matrix rigidity. Combinatorica, 13(2):235-239, 1993. Google Scholar
  5. Oded Goldreich and Avishay Tal. Matrix rigidity of random toeplitz matrices. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 91-104. ACM, 2016. Google Scholar
  6. William T Gowers. Quasirandom groups. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 17(3):363-387, 2008. Google Scholar
  7. Abhinav Kumar, Satyanarayana V Lokam, Vijay M Patankar, and MN Jayalal Sarma. Using elimination theory to construct rigid matrices. computational complexity, 23(4):531-563, 2014. Google Scholar
  8. Satyanarayana V Lokam. On the rigidity of Vandermonde matrices. Theoretical Computer Science, 237(1-2):477-483, 2000. Google Scholar
  9. Satyanarayana V Lokam. Quadratic lower bounds on matrix rigidity. In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pages 295-307. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  10. Satyanarayana V Lokam et al. Complexity lower bounds using linear algebra. Foundations and Trendsregistered in Theoretical Computer Science, 4(1-2):1-155, 2009. Google Scholar
  11. Mohammad Amin Shokrollahi, Daniel A Spielman, and Volker Stemann. A remark on matrix rigidity. Information Processing Letters, 64(6):283-285, 1997. Google Scholar
  12. Leslie G. Valiant. Graph-theoretic arguments in low-level complexity. In Jozef Gruska, editor, Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1977, pages 162-176, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1977. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google Scholar