Document Open Access Logo

Bounded Depth Circuits with Weighted Symmetric Gates: Satisfiability, Lower Bounds and Compression

Authors Takayuki Sakai, Kazuhisa Seto, Suguru Tamaki, Junichi Teruyama

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.MFCS.2016.82.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.59 MB
  • 16 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Takayuki Sakai
Kazuhisa Seto
Suguru Tamaki
Junichi Teruyama

Cite AsGet BibTex

Takayuki Sakai, Kazuhisa Seto, Suguru Tamaki, and Junichi Teruyama. Bounded Depth Circuits with Weighted Symmetric Gates: Satisfiability, Lower Bounds and Compression. In 41st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 58, pp. 82:1-82:16, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2016.82

Abstract

A Boolean function f:{0,1}^n -> {0,1} is weighted symmetric if there exist a function g: Z -> {0,1} and integers w_0, w_1, ..., w_n such that f(x_1, ...,x_n) = g(w_0+sum_{i=1}^n w_i x_i) holds. In this paper, we present algorithms for the circuit satisfiability problem of bounded depth circuits with AND, OR, NOT gates and a limited number of weighted symmetric gates. Our algorithms run in time super-polynomially faster than 2^n even when the number of gates is super-polynomial and the maximum weight of symmetric gates is nearly exponential. With an additional trick, we give an algorithm for the maximum satisfiability problem that runs in time poly(n^t)*2^{n-n^{1/O(t)}} for instances with n variables, O(n^t) clauses and arbitrary weights. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first moderately exponential time algorithm even for Max 2SAT instances with arbitrary weights. Through the analysis of our algorithms, we obtain average-case lower bounds and compression algorithms for such circuits and worst-case lower bounds for majority votes of such circuits, where all the lower bounds are against the generalized Andreev function. Our average-case lower bounds might be of independent interest in the sense that previous ones for similar circuits with arbitrary symmetric gates rely on communication complexity lower bounds while ours are based on the restriction method.
Keywords
  • exponential time algorithm
  • circuit complexity
  • circuit minimization
  • maximum satisfiability

Metrics

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

References

  1. Amir Abboud, Ryan Williams, and Huacheng Yu. More applications of the polynomial method to algorithm design. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 218-230, 2015. Google Scholar
  2. Kazuyuki Amano and Atsushi Saito. A nonuniform circuit class with multilayer of threshold gates having super quasi polynomial size lower bounds against NEXP. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA), pages 461-472, 2015. Google Scholar
  3. Kazuyuki Amano and Atsushi Saito. A satisfiability algorithm for some class of dense depth two threshold circuits. IEICE Transactions, 98-D(1):108-118, 2015. Google Scholar
  4. James Aspnes, Richard Beigel, Merrick L. Furst, and Steven Rudich. The expressive power of voting polynomials. Combinatorica, 14(2):135-148, 1994. Google Scholar
  5. László Babai, Noam Nisan, and Mario Szegedy. Multiparty protocols, pseudorandom generators for logspace, and time-space trade-offs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 45(2):204-232, 1992. Google Scholar
  6. David A. Mix Barrington and Howard Straubing. Complex polynomials and circuit lower bounds for modular counting. Computational Complexity, 4:325-338, 1994. Google Scholar
  7. Paul Beame, Russell Impagliazzo, and Srikanth Srinivasan. Approximating AC⁰ by small height decision trees and a deterministic algorithm for #AC⁰ SAT. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 117-125, 2012. Google Scholar
  8. Richard Beigel. When do extra majority gates help? polylog(n) majority gates are equivalent to one. Computational Complexity, 4:314-324, 1994. Google Scholar
  9. Richard Beigel, Nick Reingold, and Daniel A. Spielman. PP is closed under intersection. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 50(2):191-202, 1995. Google Scholar
  10. Eli Ben-Sasson and Emanuele Viola. Short PCPs with projection queries. In Proceedings of the 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), Part I, pages 163-173, 2014. Google Scholar
  11. Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, and Ramamohan Paturi. A duality between clause width and clause density for SAT. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 252-260, 2006. Google Scholar
  12. Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, and Ramamohan Paturi. The complexity of satisfiability of small depth circuits. In Revised Selected Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IWPEC), pages 75-85, 2009. Google Scholar
  13. Marco L. Carmosino, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Antonina Kolokolova. Algorithms from natural lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Computational Complexit (CCC), pages 10:1-10:24, 2016. Google Scholar
  14. Arkadev Chattopadhyay and Kristoffer Arnsfelt Hansen. Lower bounds for circuits with few modular and symmetric gates. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), pages 994-1005, 2005. Google Scholar
  15. Ruiwen Chen. Satisfiability algorithms and lower bounds for Boolean formulas over finite bases. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), Part II, pages 223-234, 2015. Google Scholar
  16. Ruiwen Chen and Valentine Kabanets. Correlation bounds and #SAT algorithms for small linear-size circuits. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON), pages 211-222, 2015. Google Scholar
  17. Ruiwen Chen, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, Ronen Shaltiel, and David Zuckerman. Mining circuit lower bound proofs for meta-algorithms. Computational Complexity, 24(2):333-392, 2015. Google Scholar
  18. Ruiwen Chen, Valentine Kabanets, and Nitin Saurabh. An improved deterministic #SAT algorithm for small De Morgan formulas. In Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), Part II, pages 165-176, 2014. Google Scholar
  19. Ruiwen Chen and Rahul Santhanam. Improved algorithms for sparse MAX-SAT and MAX-k-CSP. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), pages 33-45, 2015. Google Scholar
  20. Ruiwen Chen, Rahul Santhanam, and Srikanth Srinivasan. Average-case lower bounds and satisfiability algorithms for small threshold circuits. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Computational Complexit (CCC), pages 1:1-1:35, 2016. Google Scholar
  21. Marek Cygan, Holger Dell, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Jesper Nederlof, Yoshio Okamoto, Ramamohan Paturi, Saket Saurabh, and Magnus Wahlström. On problems as hard as CNF-SAT. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 74-84, 2012. Google Scholar
  22. Jürgen Forster, Matthias Krause, Satyanarayana V. Lokam, Rustam Mubarakzjanov, Niels Schmitt, and Hans-Ulrich Simon. Relations between communication complexity, linear arrangements, and computational complexity. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS), pages 171-182, 2001. Google Scholar
  23. Mikael Goldmann. On the power of a threshold gate at the top. Inf. Process. Lett., 63(6):287-293, 1997. Google Scholar
  24. Mikael Goldmann and Marek Karpinski. Simulating threshold circuits by majority circuits. SIAM J. Comput., 27(1):230-246, 1998. Google Scholar
  25. Alexander Golovnev, Alexander S. Kulikov, Alexander Smal, and Suguru Tamaki. Circuit size lower bounds and #SAT upper bounds through a general framework. In Proceedings of the 41st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), 2016, to appear. Google Scholar
  26. Parikshit Gopalan and Rocco A. Servedio. Learning and lower bounds for AC⁰ with threshold gates. In Proceedings of the 13th APPROX and the 14th RANDOM, pages 588-601, 2010. Google Scholar
  27. András Hajnal, Wolfgang Maass, Pavel Pudlák, Mario Szegedy, and György Turán. Threshold circuits of bounded depth. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 46(2):129-154, 1993. Google Scholar
  28. Kristoffer Arnsfelt Hansen and Peter Bro Miltersen. Some meet-in-the-middle circuit lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), pages 334-345, 2004. Google Scholar
  29. Johan Håstad and Mikael Goldmann. On the power of small-depth threshold circuits. Computational Complexity, 1:113-129, 1991. Google Scholar
  30. Russell Impagliazzo, Shachar Lovett, Ramamohan Paturi, and Stefan Schneider. 0-1 integer linear programming with a linear number of constraints. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR14-24, 2014. Google Scholar
  31. Russell Impagliazzo, William Matthews, and Ramamohan Paturi. A satisfiability algorithm for AC⁰. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 961-972, 2012. Google Scholar
  32. Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi. On the complexity of k-SAT. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 62(2):367-375, 2001. Google Scholar
  33. Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Stefan Schneider. A satisfiability algorithm for sparse depth two threshold circuits. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 479-488, 2013. Google Scholar
  34. Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 63(4):512-530, 2001. Google Scholar
  35. Hamid Jahanjou, Eric Miles, and Emanuele Viola. Local reductions. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), Part I, pages 749-760, 2015. Google Scholar
  36. Ilan Komargodski, Ran Raz, and Avishay Tal. Improved average-case lower bounds for demorgan formula size. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 588-597, 2013. Google Scholar
  37. Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, and Saket Saurabh. Lower bounds based on the exponential time hypothesis. Bulletin of the EATCS, 105:41-72, 2011. Google Scholar
  38. Shachar Lovett and Srikanth Srinivasan. Correlation bounds for poly-size AC⁰ circuits with n^1 - o(1) symmetric gates. In Proceedings of the 14th APPROX 2011 and the 15th RANDOM, pages 640-651, 2011. Google Scholar
  39. Oleg Borisovich Lupanov. On a method of circuit synthesis (in Russian). Izvestiâ vysših učebnyh zavedenij, Radiofiz, 1:120-140, 1958. Google Scholar
  40. Dániel Marx. Consequences of SETH: Tight bounds for some more problems, 2015. (abstract, slides and archived video). URL: https://simons.berkeley.edu/talks/daniel-marx-2015-09-04.
  41. Saburo Muroga, Iwao Toda, and Satoru Takasu. Theory of majority decision elements. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 271(5):376-418, 1961. Google Scholar
  42. Atsuki Nagao, Kazuhisa Seto, and Junichi Teruyama. A moderately exponential time algorithm for k-IBDD satisfiability. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium, on Algorithms and Data Structures (WADS), pages 554-565, 2015. Google Scholar
  43. Igor Carboni Oliveira. Algorithms versus circuit lower bounds. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR13-117, 2013. Google Scholar
  44. Vladimir V. Podolskii. Exponential lower bound for bounded depth circuits with few threshold gates. Inf. Process. Lett., 112(7):267-271, 2012. Google Scholar
  45. Anup Rao. Extractors for low-weight affine sources. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 95-101, 2009. Google Scholar
  46. Alexander Razborov. Lower bounds on the size of bounded-depth networks over a complete basis with logical addition. Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sci. of the USSR, 41(4):333-338, 1987. Google Scholar
  47. Alexander Razborov and Steven Rudich. Natural proofs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 55(1):24-35, 1997. Google Scholar
  48. Alexander Razborov and Avi Wigderson. n^Ω(log n) lower bounds on the size of depth-3 threshold circuits with AND gates at the bottom. Inf. Process. Lett., 45(6):303-307, 1993. Google Scholar
  49. Takayuki Sakai, Kazuhisa Seto, and Suguru Tamaki. Solving sparse instances of Max SAT via width reduction and greedy restriction. Theory Comput. Syst., 57(2):426-443, 2015. Google Scholar
  50. Takayuki Sakai, Kazuhisa Seto, Suguru Tamaki, and Junichi Teruyama. A satisfiability algorithm for depth-2 circuits with a symmetric gate at the top and AND gates at the bottom. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR15-136, 2015. Google Scholar
  51. Rahul Santhanam. Fighting perebor: New and improved algorithms for formula and QBF satisfiability. In Proceedings of the 51th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 183-192, 2010. Google Scholar
  52. Rahul Santhanam. Ironic complicity: Satisfiability algorithms and circuit lower bounds. Bulletin of the EATCS, 106:31-52, 2012. Google Scholar
  53. Rainer Schuler. An algorithm for the satisfiability problem of formulas in conjunctive normal form. J. Algorithms, 54(1):40-44, 2005. Google Scholar
  54. Kazuhisa Seto and Suguru Tamaki. A satisfiability algorithm and average-case hardness for formulas over the full binary basis. Computational Complexity, 22(2):245-274, 2013. Google Scholar
  55. Roman Smolensky. Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 77-82, 1987. Google Scholar
  56. Srikanth Srinivasan. A compression algorithm for AC⁰[⊕] circuits using certifying polynomials. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR15-142, 2015. Google Scholar
  57. Avishay Tal. #SAT algorithms from shrinkage. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR15-114, 2015. Google Scholar
  58. Emanuele Viola. Pseudorandom bits for constant-depth circuits with few arbitrary symmetric gates. SIAM J. Comput., 36(5):1387-1403, 2007. Google Scholar
  59. Fengming Wang. NEXP does not have non-uniform quasipolynomial-size ACC circuits of o(log log n) depth. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation (TAMC), pages 164-170, 2011. Google Scholar
  60. Ryan Williams. Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds. SIAM J. Comput., 42(3):1218-1244, 2013. Google Scholar
  61. Ryan Williams. Natural proofs versus derandomization. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference (STOC), pages 21-30, 2013. Google Scholar
  62. Ryan Williams. Algorithms for circuits and circuits for algorithms. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 248-261, 2014. Google Scholar
  63. Ryan Williams. New algorithms and lower bounds for circuits with linear threshold gates. In Proceedings of the 46th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 194-202, 2014. Google Scholar
  64. Ryan Williams. Nonuniform ACC circuit lower bounds. J. ACM, 61(1):2, 2014. Google Scholar
  65. Francis Zane. Circuits, CNFs, and satisfiability. PhD thesis, UC San Diego, 1998. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact