Algorithms and Lower Bounds for Comparator Circuits from Shrinkage

Authors Bruno P. Cavalar , Zhenjian Lu

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.88 MB
  • 21 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Bruno P. Cavalar
  • University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Zhenjian Lu
  • University of Warwick, Coventry, UK


Both authors are indebted to Igor C. Oliveira for numerous helpful discussions and comments.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Bruno P. Cavalar and Zhenjian Lu. Algorithms and Lower Bounds for Comparator Circuits from Shrinkage. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 215, pp. 34:1-34:21, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)


Comparator circuits are a natural circuit model for studying bounded fan-out computation whose power sits between nondeterministic branching programs and general circuits. Despite having been studied for nearly three decades, the first superlinear lower bound against comparator circuits was proved only recently by Gál and Robere (ITCS 2020), who established a Ω((n/log n)^{1.5}) lower bound on the size of comparator circuits computing an explicit function of n bits. In this paper, we initiate the study of average-case complexity and circuit analysis algorithms for comparator circuits. Departing from previous approaches, we exploit the technique of shrinkage under random restrictions to obtain a variety of new results for this model. Among them, we show - Average-case Lower Bounds. For every k = k(n) with k ≥ log n, there exists a polynomial-time computable function f_k on n bits such that, for every comparator circuit C with at most n^{1.5}/O(k⋅ √{log n}) gates, we have Pr_{x ∈ {0,1}ⁿ} [C(x) = f_k(x)] ≤ 1/2 + 1/{2^{Ω(k)}}. This average-case lower bound matches the worst-case lower bound of Gál and Robere by letting k = O(log n). - #SAT Algorithms. There is an algorithm that counts the number of satisfying assignments of a given comparator circuit with at most n^{1.5}/O (k⋅ √{log n}) gates, in time 2^{n-k} · poly(n), for any k ≤ n/4. The running time is non-trivial (i.e., 2ⁿ/n^{ω(1)}) when k = ω(log n). - Pseudorandom Generators and MCSP Lower Bounds. There is a pseudorandom generator of seed length s^{2/3+o(1)} that fools comparator circuits with s gates. Also, using this PRG, we obtain an n^{1.5-o(1)} lower bound for MCSP against comparator circuits.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Circuit complexity
  • comparator circuits
  • average-case complexity
  • satisfiability algorithms
  • pseudorandom generators


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


  1. M. Ajtai, J. Komlós, and E. Szemerédi. An O(n log n) sorting network. In Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 1-9, 1983. URL:
  2. Lijie Chen, Shuichi Hirahara, Igor Carboni Oliveira, Ján Pich, Ninad Rajgopal, and Rahul Santhanam. Beyond natural proofs: Hardness magnification and locality. In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), pages 70:1-70:48, 2020. URL:
  3. Lijie Chen, Ce Jin, and R. Ryan Williams. Hardness magnification for all sparse NP languages. In Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 1240-1255, 2019. URL:
  4. Lijie Chen, Ce Jin, and R. Ryan Williams. Sharp threshold results for computational complexity. In Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 1335-1348, 2020. URL:
  5. Ruiwen Chen, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, Ronen Shaltiel, and David Zuckerman. Mining circuit lower bound proofs for meta-algorithms. Comput. Complex., 24(2):333-392, 2015. URL:
  6. Mahdi Cheraghchi, Valentine Kabanets, Zhenjian Lu, and Dimitrios Myrisiotis. Circuit lower bounds for MCSP from local pseudorandom generators. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory, 12(3):21:1-21:27, 2020. URL:
  7. Stephen A. Cook, Yuval Filmus, and Dai Tri Man Le. The complexity of the comparator circuit value problem. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory, 6(4):15:1-15:44, 2014. URL:
  8. Anna Gál and Robert Robere. Lower bounds for (non-monotone) comparator circuits. In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), pages 58:1-58:13, 2020. Google Scholar
  9. Alexander Golovnev, Rahul Ilango, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, and Avishay Tal. AC^0[p] lower bounds against MCSP via the coin problem. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 66:1-66:15, 2019. Google Scholar
  10. Mika Göös, Pritish Kamath, Robert Robere, and Dmitry Sokolov. Adventures in monotone complexity and TFNP. In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), pages 38:1-38:19, 2019. Google Scholar
  11. Johan Håstad. Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 6-20, 1986. URL:
  12. V. M. Hrapčenko. A certain method of obtaining estimates from below of the complexity of π-schemes. Mat. Zametki, 10:83-92, 1971. Google Scholar
  13. Russell Impagliazzo, William Matthews, and Ramamohan Paturi. A satisfiability algorithm for AC^0. In Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 961-972, 2012. Google Scholar
  14. Russell Impagliazzo, Raghu Meka, and David Zuckerman. Pseudorandomness from shrinkage. J. ACM, 66(2):11:1-11:16, 2019. URL:
  15. Stasys Jukna. Boolean Function Complexity - Advances and Frontiers, volume 27 of Algorithms and combinatorics. Springer, 2012. URL:
  16. Valentine Kabanets, Sajin Koroth, Zhenjian Lu, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, and Igor Carboni Oliveira. Algorithms and lower bounds for De Morgan formulas of low-communication leaf gates. In Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 15:1-15:41, 2020. Google Scholar
  17. Balagopal Komarath, Jayalal Sarma, and K. S. Sunil. Comparator circuits over finite bounded posets. Inf. Comput., 261:160-174, 2018. URL:
  18. Ilan Komargodski and Ran Raz. Average-case lower bounds for formula size. In Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 171-180, 2013. URL:
  19. Ilan Komargodski, Ran Raz, and Avishay Tal. Improved average-case lower bounds for De Morgan formula size: Matching worst-case lower bound. SIAM J. Comput., 46(1):37-57, 2017. URL:
  20. Ernst W. Mayr and Ashok Subramanian. The complexity of circuit value and network stability. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 44(2):302-323, 1992. URL:
  21. È. I. Nechiporuk. On a Boolean function. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 169:765-766, 1966. Google Scholar
  22. Igor C. Oliveira, Ján Pich, and Rahul Santhanam. Hardness magnification near state-of-the-art lower bounds. In Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), pages 27:1-27:29, 2019. URL:
  23. Igor C. Oliveira and Rahul Santhanam. Hardness magnification for natural problems. In Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 65-76, 2018. URL:
  24. Igor Carboni Oliveira. Algorithms versus circuit lower bounds. CoRR, abs/1309.0249, 2013. URL:
  25. A. A. Razborov. Lower bounds on the complexity of realization of symmetric Boolean functions by gate switching circuits. Mat. Zametki, 48(6):79-90, 1990. URL:
  26. Robert Robere, Toniann Pitassi, Benjamin Rossman, and Stephen A. Cook. Exponential lower bounds for monotone span programs. In Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 406-415, 2016. Google Scholar
  27. Jeanette P. Schmidt, Alan Siegel, and Aravind Srinivasan. Chernoff-Hoeffding bounds for applications with limited independence. SIAM J. Discret. Math., 8(2):223-250, 1995. URL:
  28. Rocco A. Servedio and Li-Yang Tan. What circuit classes can be learned with non-trivial savings? In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), pages 30:1-30:21, 2017. Google Scholar
  29. Avishay Tal. #SAT algorithms from shrinkage. Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex., page 114, 2015. URL:
  30. Ryan Williams. Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds. SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(3):1218-1244, 2013. Google Scholar
  31. Ryan Williams. Algorithms for circuits and circuits for algorithms. In Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 248-261, 2014. Google Scholar
  32. Ryan Williams. Nonuniform ACC circuit lower bounds. Journal of the ACM, 61(1):2:1-2:32, 2014. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail