Towards Stronger Depth Lower Bounds

Authors Gabriel Bathie , R. Ryan Williams



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.10.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.93 MB
  • 24 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Gabriel Bathie
  • LaBRI, Université de Bordeaux, France
  • DIENS, PSL Research University, Paris, France
R. Ryan Williams
  • CSAIL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Gabriel Bathie and R. Ryan Williams. Towards Stronger Depth Lower Bounds. In 15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 287, pp. 10:1-10:24, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.10

Abstract

A fundamental problem in circuit complexity is to find explicit functions that require large depth to compute. When considering the natural DeMorgan basis of {OR,AND}, where negations incur no cost, the best known depth lower bounds for an explicit function in NP have the form (3-o(1))log₂ n, established by Håstad (building on others) in the early 1990s. We make progress on the problem of improving this factor of 3, in two different ways: - We consider an "algorithmic method" approach to proving stronger depth lower bounds for non-uniform circuits in the DeMorgan basis. We show that slightly faster algorithms (than what is known) for counting the number of satisfying assignments on subcubic-size DeMorgan formulas would imply supercubic-size DeMorgan formula lower bounds, implying that the depth must be at least (3+ε)log₂ n for some ε > 0. For example, if #SAT on formulas of size n^{2+2ε} can be solved in 2^{n - n^{1-ε}log^k n} time for some ε > 0 and a sufficiently large constant k, then there is a function computable in 2^{O(n)} time with a SAT oracle which does not have n^{3+ε}-size formulas. In fact, the #SAT algorithm only has to work on formulas that are a conjunction of n^{1-ε} subformulas, each of which is n^{1+3ε} size, in order to obtain the supercubic lower bound. As a proof of concept, we show that our new algorithms-to-lower-bounds connection can be applied to prove new lower bounds for "hybrid" DeMorgan formula models which compute interesting functions at their leaves. - Turning to the {NAND} basis, we establish a greater-than-(3 log₂ n) depth lower bound against uniform circuits solving the SAT problem, using an extension of the "indirect diagonalization" method for NAND formulas. Note that circuits over the NAND basis are a special case of circuits over the DeMorgan basis; however, hard functions such as Andreev’s function (known to require depth (3-o(1))log₂ n in the DeMorgan basis) can still be computed with NAND circuits of depth (3+o(1))log₂ n. Our results imply that SAT requires polylogtime-uniform NAND circuits of depth at least 3.603 log₂ n.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Computational complexity and cryptography
Keywords
  • DeMorgan formulas
  • depth complexity
  • circuit complexity
  • lower bounds
  • #SAT
  • NAND gates
  • SAT

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Eric Allender, José Balcázar, and Neil Immerman. A first-order isomorphism theorem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(2):557-567, 1997. Google Scholar
  2. Eric Allender, Michal Koucký, Detlef Ronneburger, Sambuddha Roy, and V. Vinay. Time-space tradeoffs in the counting hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, Chicago, Illinois, USA, June 18-21, 2001, pages 295-302. IEEE Computer Society, 2001. Google Scholar
  3. Alexander E. Andreev. On a method for obtaining more than quadratic effective lower bounds for the complexity of π-schemes. Moscow Univ. Math. Bull., 42(1):63-66, 1987. Google Scholar
  4. Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. Computational Complexity - A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Google Scholar
  5. Gabriel Bathie and R. Ryan Williams. Towards stronger depth lower bounds. Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex., TR23-184, 2023. URL: https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2023/184/.
  6. Eli Ben-Sasson, Oded Goldreich, Prahladh Harsha, Madhu Sudan, and Salil P. Vadhan. Robust PCPs of proximity, shorter PCPs, and applications to coding. SIAM J. Comput., 36(4):889-974, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539705446810.
  7. Eli Ben-Sasson and Emanuele Viola. Short PCPs with projection queries. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 163-173. Springer, 2014. Google Scholar
  8. Maria Luisa Bonet and Samuel R Buss. Size-depth tradeoffs for Boolean formulae. Information Processing Letters, 49(3):151-155, 1994. Google Scholar
  9. Richard P Brent. The parallel evaluation of general arithmetic expressions. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 21(2):201-206, 1974. Google Scholar
  10. Samuel R Buss and Ryan Williams. Limits on alternation trading proofs for time-space lower bounds. computational complexity, 24(3):533-600, 2015. Google Scholar
  11. Timothy M. Chan and R. Ryan Williams. Deterministic apsp, orthogonal vectors, and more: Quickly derandomizing razborov-smolensky. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 17(1):2:1-2:14, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3402926.
  12. Ashok K Chandra, Dexter C Kozen, and Larry J Stockmeyer. Alternation. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 28(1):114-133, 1981. Google Scholar
  13. Lijie Chen, Zhenjian Lu, Xin Lyu, and Igor Carboni Oliveira. Majority vs. approximate linear sum and average-case complexity below NC¹. In 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP, volume 198 of LIPIcs, pages 51:1-51:20. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.51.
  14. Lijie Chen and R. Ryan Williams. Stronger connections between circuit analysis and circuit lower bounds, via PCPs of proximity. In 34th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC, volume 137 of LIPIcs, pages 19:1-19:43. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2019. Google Scholar
  15. Ruiwen Chen and Valentine Kabanets. Correlation bounds and #SAT algorithms for small linear-size circuits. Theoretical Computer Science, 654:2-10, 2016. Google Scholar
  16. Ruiwen Chen, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, Ronen Shaltiel, and David Zuckerman. Mining circuit lower bound proofs for meta-algorithms. Computational Complexity, 24:333-392, 2015. Google Scholar
  17. Ruiwen Chen, Valentine Kabanets, and Nitin Saurabh. An improved deterministic #SAT algorithm for small De Morgan formulas. Algorithmica, 76:68-87, 2016. Google Scholar
  18. Susanna F. de Rezende, Or Meir, Jakob Nordström, Toniann Pitassi, and Robert Robere. KRW composition theorems via lifting. In 61st IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS, pages 43-49. IEEE, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS46700.2020.00013.
  19. Irit Dinur and Or Meir. Toward the KRW Composition Conjecture: Cubic Formula Lower Bounds via Communication Complexity. In CCC 2016, pages 3:1-3:51, 2016. Google Scholar
  20. Lance Fortnow. Time-space tradeoffs for satisfiability. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 60(2):337-353, 2000. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1999.1671.
  21. Lance Fortnow, Richard J. Lipton, Dieter van Melkebeek, and Anastasios Viglas. Time-space lower bounds for satisfiability. J. ACM, 52(6):835-865, 2005. Google Scholar
  22. Dmitry Gavinsky, Or Meir, Omri Weinstein, and Avi Wigderson. Toward better formula lower bounds: The composition of a function and a universal relation. SIAM J. Comput., 46(1):114-131, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1018319.
  23. Johan Håstad. The shrinkage exponent of DeMorgan formulas is 2. SIAM J. Comput., 27(1):48-64, 1998. Preliminary version in FOCS'93. Google Scholar
  24. Johan Håstad. On the correlation of Parity and small-depth circuits. SIAM J. Comput., 43(5):1699-1708, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/120897432.
  25. Russell Impagliazzo, William Matthews, and Ramamohan Paturi. A satisfiability algorithm for AC0. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 961-972. SIAM, 2012. Google Scholar
  26. Russell Impagliazzo, Raghu Meka, and David Zuckerman. Pseudorandomness from shrinkage. J. ACM, 66(2):11:1-11:16, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3230630.
  27. Russell Impagliazzo and Noam Nisan. The effect of random restrictions on formula size. Random Struct. Algorithms, 4(2):121-134, 1993. Google Scholar
  28. Hamid Jahanjou, Eric Miles, and Emanuele Viola. Local reductions. In Automata, Languages, and Programming - 42nd International Colloquium, ICALP, Proceedings, Part I, pages 749-760, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47672-7_61.
  29. Valentine Kabanets, Sajin Koroth, Zhenjian Lu, Dimitrios Myrisiotis, and Igor C. Oliveira. Algorithms and lower bounds for de morgan formulas of low-communication leaf gates. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory, 13(4):23:1-23:37, 2021. Google Scholar
  30. 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 35th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC, volume 169 of LIPIcs, pages 15:1-15:41. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2020.15.
  31. Ravi Kannan. Alternation and the power of nondeterminism. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 344-346. ACM, 1983. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/800061.808764.
  32. Mauricio Karchmer, Ran Raz, and Avi Wigderson. Super-logarithmic depth lower bounds via the direct sum in communication complexity. Comput. Complex., 5(3/4):191-204, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206317.
  33. 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. Google Scholar
  34. Daniel Lokshtanov, Ramamohan Paturi, Suguru Tamaki, R. Ryan Williams, and Huacheng Yu. Beating brute force for systems of polynomial equations over finite fields. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA, pages 2190-2202. SIAM, 2017. Google Scholar
  35. William Finlay McColl. Some results on circuit depth. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, 1976. URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/59627/1/WRAP_THESIS_McColl_1977.pdf.
  36. Ivan Mihajlin and Anastasia Sofronova. A better-than-3log(n) depth lower bound for De Morgan formulas with restrictions on top gates. In 37th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC, volume 234 of LIPIcs, pages 13:1-13:15. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2022.13.
  37. Abhijit S Mudigonda and R Ryan Williams. Time-space lower bounds for simulating proof systems with quantum and randomized verifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00330, 2020. Google Scholar
  38. Cody D. Murray and R. Ryan Williams. Circuit lower bounds for nondeterministic quasi-polytime from a new easy witness lemma. SIAM J. Comput., 49(5), 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1195887.
  39. É. I. Nechiporuk. On a boolean function. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 169:765-766, 1966. Google Scholar
  40. Mike Paterson and Uri Zwick. Shrinkage of de Morgan formulae under restriction. Random Struct. Algorithms, 4(2):135-150, 1993. Google Scholar
  41. Ben Reichardt. Reflections for quantum query algorithms. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 560-569. SIAM, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973082.44.
  42. Rahul Santhanam. Fighting perebor: New and improved algorithms for formula and QBF satisfiability. In 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 183-192. IEEE, 2010. Google Scholar
  43. Igor Sergeevich Sergeev. On a relation between the depth and complexity of monotone Boolean formulas. Diskretnyi Analiz i Issledovanie Operatsii, 26(4):108-120, 2019. Google Scholar
  44. Daniel A. Spielman. Linear-time encodable and decodable error-correcting codes. IEEE Trans. Information Theory, 42(6):1723-1731, 1996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/18.556668.
  45. Philip Spira. On time-hardware complexity tradeoffs for Boolean functions. In Proceedings of the 4th Hawaii Symposium on System Sciences, 1971, pages 525-527, 1971. Google Scholar
  46. Bella Abramovna Subbotovskaya. Realizations of linear functions by formulas using and, or, not. In Soviet Mathematics Doklady, volume 2, pages 110-112, 1961. Google Scholar
  47. Avishay Tal. Shrinkage of De Morgan formulae by spectral techniques. In FOCS 2014, pages 551-560. IEEE, 2014. Google Scholar
  48. Avishay Tal. #SAT algorithms from shrinkage. Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex., TR15-114, 2015. URL: https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2015/114.
  49. Dieter van Melkebeek. A survey of lower bounds for satisfiability and related problems. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci., 2(3):197-303, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000012.
  50. Dieter van Melkebeek and Ran Raz. A time lower bound for satisfiability. Theor. Comput. Sci., 348(2-3):311-320, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2005.09.020.
  51. Emanuele Viola. The sum of D small-bias generators fools polynomials of degree D. Comput. Complex., 18(2):209-217, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00037-009-0273-5.
  52. Heribert Vollmer. Introduction to Circuit Complexity - A Uniform Approach. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03927-4.
  53. R. Ryan Williams. New algorithms and lower bounds for circuits with linear threshold gates. Theory of Computing, 14(1):1-25, 2018. Preliminary version in STOC'14. URL: https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2018.v014a017.
  54. Ryan Williams. Inductive time-space lower bounds for SAT and related problems. Computational Complexity, 15(4):433-470, 2006. Google Scholar
  55. Ryan Williams. Time-space tradeoffs for counting NP solutions modulo integers. In Twenty-Second Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'07), pages 70-82. IEEE, 2007. Google Scholar
  56. Ryan Williams. Alternation-trading proofs, linear programming, and lower bounds. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (TOCT), 5(2):1-49, 2013. Google Scholar
  57. Ryan Williams. Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds. SIAM J. Comput., 42(3):1218-1244, 2013. Google Scholar
  58. Ryan Williams. Nonuniform ACC circuit lower bounds. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 61(1):2, 2014. Google Scholar