Constant-depth circuits vs. monotone circuits

B. P. Cavalar, I. Oliveira
{"title":"Constant-depth circuits vs. monotone circuits","authors":"B. P. Cavalar, I. Oliveira","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2305.06821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We establish new separations between the power of monotone and general (non-monotone) Boolean circuits: - For every $k \\geq 1$, there is a monotone function in ${\\sf AC^0}$ that requires monotone circuits of depth $\\Omega(\\log^k n)$. This significantly extends a classical result of Okol'nishnikova (1982) and Ajtai and Gurevich (1987). In addition, our separation holds for a monotone graph property, which was unknown even in the context of ${\\sf AC^0}$ versus ${\\sf mAC^0}$. - For every $k \\geq 1$, there is a monotone function in ${\\sf AC^0}[\\oplus]$ that requires monotone circuits of size $\\exp(\\Omega(\\log^k n))$. This makes progress towards a question posed by Grigni and Sipser (1992). These results show that constant-depth circuits can be more efficient than monotone circuits when computing monotone functions. In the opposite direction, we observe that non-trivial simulations are possible in the absence of parity gates: every monotone function computed by an ${\\sf AC^0}$ circuit of size $s$ and depth $d$ can be computed by a monotone circuit of size $2^{n - n/O(\\log s)^{d-1}}$. We show that the existence of significantly faster monotone simulations would lead to breakthrough circuit lower bounds. In particular, if every monotone function in ${\\sf AC^0}$ admits a polynomial size monotone circuit, then ${\\sf NC^2}$ is not contained in ${\\sf NC^1}$ . Finally, we revisit our separation result against monotone circuit size and investigate the limits of our approach, which is based on a monotone lower bound for constraint satisfaction problems established by G\\\"o\\\"os et al. (2019) via lifting techniques. Adapting results of Schaefer (1978) and Allender et al. (2009), we obtain an unconditional classification of the monotone circuit complexity of Boolean-valued CSPs via their polymorphisms. This result and the consequences we derive from it might be of independent interest.","PeriodicalId":11639,"journal":{"name":"Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex.","volume":"124 1","pages":"29:1-29:37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.06821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We establish new separations between the power of monotone and general (non-monotone) Boolean circuits: - For every $k \geq 1$, there is a monotone function in ${\sf AC^0}$ that requires monotone circuits of depth $\Omega(\log^k n)$. This significantly extends a classical result of Okol'nishnikova (1982) and Ajtai and Gurevich (1987). In addition, our separation holds for a monotone graph property, which was unknown even in the context of ${\sf AC^0}$ versus ${\sf mAC^0}$. - For every $k \geq 1$, there is a monotone function in ${\sf AC^0}[\oplus]$ that requires monotone circuits of size $\exp(\Omega(\log^k n))$. This makes progress towards a question posed by Grigni and Sipser (1992). These results show that constant-depth circuits can be more efficient than monotone circuits when computing monotone functions. In the opposite direction, we observe that non-trivial simulations are possible in the absence of parity gates: every monotone function computed by an ${\sf AC^0}$ circuit of size $s$ and depth $d$ can be computed by a monotone circuit of size $2^{n - n/O(\log s)^{d-1}}$. We show that the existence of significantly faster monotone simulations would lead to breakthrough circuit lower bounds. In particular, if every monotone function in ${\sf AC^0}$ admits a polynomial size monotone circuit, then ${\sf NC^2}$ is not contained in ${\sf NC^1}$ . Finally, we revisit our separation result against monotone circuit size and investigate the limits of our approach, which is based on a monotone lower bound for constraint satisfaction problems established by G\"o\"os et al. (2019) via lifting techniques. Adapting results of Schaefer (1978) and Allender et al. (2009), we obtain an unconditional classification of the monotone circuit complexity of Boolean-valued CSPs via their polymorphisms. This result and the consequences we derive from it might be of independent interest.
恒深电路与单调电路
我们在单调的功率和一般(非单调)布尔电路之间建立了新的分离:—对于每个$k \geq 1$,在${\sf AC^0}$中有一个单调函数,它需要深度为$\Omega(\log^k n)$的单调电路。这大大扩展了Okol'nishnikova(1982)和Ajtai and Gurevich(1987)的经典结果。此外,我们的分离适用于单调图属性,即使在${\sf AC^0}$与${\sf mAC^0}$的上下文中也是未知的。—对于每个$k \geq 1$, ${\sf AC^0}[\oplus]$中都有一个单调函数,需要大小为$\exp(\Omega(\log^k n))$的单调电路。这使得Grigni和Sipser(1992)提出的问题取得了进展。这些结果表明,在计算单调函数时,恒深电路比单调电路更有效。在相反的方向上,我们观察到,在没有奇偶门的情况下,非平凡的模拟是可能的:由大小为$s$和深度为$d$的${\sf AC^0}$电路计算的每个单调函数都可以由大小为$2^{n - n/O(\log s)^{d-1}}$的单调电路计算。我们证明了显著更快的单调模拟的存在将导致突破电路的下界。特别地,如果${\sf AC^0}$中的每个单调函数都允许多项式大小的单调电路,则${\sf NC^1}$中不包含${\sf NC^2}$。最后,我们根据单调电路大小重新审视了我们的分离结果,并研究了我们方法的局限性,该方法基于Göös等人(2019)通过提升技术建立的约束满足问题的单调下界。根据Schaefer(1978)和Allender et al.(2009)的结果,我们通过布尔值csp的多态性获得了它们单调回路复杂度的无条件分类。这个结果和我们从中得出的结果可能是独立的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信