Document

# Does Looking Inside a Circuit Help?

## File

LIPIcs.MFCS.2017.1.pdf
• Filesize: 494 kB
• 13 pages

## Cite As

Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, Pierre McKenzie, and Shadab Romani. Does Looking Inside a Circuit Help?. In 42nd International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 83, pp. 1:1-1:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2017.1

## Abstract

The Black-Box Hypothesisstates that any property of Boolean functions decided efficiently (e.g., in BPP) with inputs represented by circuits can also be decided efficiently in the black-box setting, where an algorithm is given an oracle access to the input function and an upper bound on its circuit size. If this hypothesis is true, then P neq NP. We focus on the consequences of the hypothesis being false, showing that (under general conditions on the structure of a counterexample) it implies a non-trivial algorithm for CSAT. More specifically, we show that if there is a property F of boolean functions such that F has high sensitivity on some input function f of subexponential circuit complexity (which is a sufficient condition for F being a counterexample to the Black-Box Hypothesis), then CSAT is solvable by a subexponential-size circuit family. Moreover, if such a counterexample F is symmetric, then CSAT is in Ppoly. These results provide some evidence towards the conjecture (made in this paper) that the Black-Box Hypothesis is false if and only if CSAT is easy.
##### Keywords
• Black-Box Hypothesis
• Rice's theorem
• circuit complexity
• SAT
• sensitivity of boolean functions
• decision tree complexity

## Metrics

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

## References

1. Leonard Adleman. Two theorems on random polynomial time. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 75-83, 1978.
2. Eric Allender, Dhiraj Holden, and Valentine Kabanets. The minimum oracle circuit size problem. Computational Complexity, 26(2):469-496, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00037-016-0124-0.
3. Andris Ambainis and Jevgēnijs Vihrovs. Size of sets with small sensitivity: A generalization of Simon’s lemma. In International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pages 122-133. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
4. Laci Babai, Lance Fortnow, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. BPP has subexponential time simulations unless EXPTIME has publishable proofs. Computational Complexity, 3:307-318, 1993.
5. Boaz Barak, Oded Goldreich, Russell Impagliazzo, Steven Rudich, Amit Sahai, Salil Vadhan, and Ke Yang. On the (im) possibility of obfuscating programs. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 59(2):6, 2012.
6. Bernd Borchert and Frank Stephan. Looking for an analogue of Rice’s theorem in circuit complexity theory. Math. Log. Q., 46(4):489-504, 2000. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1521-3870(200010)46:4<489::AID-MALQ489>3.0.CO;2-F.
7. Harry Buhrman and Ronald de Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21–43, Oct 2002.
8. Ashok K Chandra, Larry Stockmeyer, and Uzi Vishkin. Constant depth reducibility. SIAM Journal on Computing, 13(2):423-439, 1984.
9. Pooya Hatami, Raghav Kulkarni, and Denis Pankratov. Variations on the sensitivity conjecture. Theory of Computing, Graduate Surveys, 2:1-27, 2011.
10. Lane A. Hemaspaandra and Jörg Rothe. A second step towards complexity-theoretic analogs of Rice’s theorem. Theor. Comput. Sci., 244(1-2):205-217, 2000.
11. Lane A. Hemaspaandra and Mayur Thakur. Lower bounds and the hardness of counting properties. Theor. Comput. Sci., 326(1-3):1-28, 2004.
12. Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, Pierre McKenzie, and Shadab Romani. Does looking inside a circuit help? Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, 17(109), 2017.
13. Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(4):512-530, 2001. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2001.1774.
14. Russell Impagliazzo and Avi Wigderson. P=BPP if E requires exponential circuits: Derandomizing the XOR Lemma. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 220-229, 1997.
15. Noam Nisan. CREW PRAMs and decision trees. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(6):999-1007, 1991.
16. Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. Hardness vs. randomness. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 49:149-167, 1994.
17. Ramamohan Paturi and Pavel Pudlák. On the complexity of circuit satisfiability. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 5-8 June 2010, pages 241-250, 2010.
18. Hans-Ulrich Simon. A tight ω (loglog n)-bound on the time for parallel RAM’s to compute nondegenerated boolean functions. In Foundations of Computation Theory, pages 439-444. Springer, 1983.
19. Leslie Valiant and Vijay Vazirani. NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoretical Computer Science, 47:85-93, 1986.