SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2305.06821

Constant-depth circuits vs. monotone circuits

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 $Ω(\log^k n)$. 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 $\exp(Ω(\log^k n))$. 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 Göös 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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bruno P. Cavalar, Igor C. Oliveira. 2023-05-11. Constant-depth circuits vs. monotone circuits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06821

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Computational Complexity of Holant Problems on 4-regular Graphs from the Stable Subgroup Sequence of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$

The Holant framework provides a general setting for studying counting problems and includes graph homomorphisms (\#GH) and counting constraint satisfaction problems (\#CSP) as special cases. Over the past twenty years, a series of computational complexity dichotomies have been established for Holant problems, but the classification for complex-valued signatures is still open. The main obstacle is the case in which all signatures have even arity. In this paper, we establish a dichotomy for Holant problems with a complex-valued 4-ary signature, which is a key base case for the full classification of Holant problems. We present a new strategy by introducing Schur's theorem, the classification of finite subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ and stable subgroup sequences into the proof. These new techniques are of independent interest.

cs.CC

Topology inside NC$^1$

We show that ACC$^0$ is precisely what can be computed with constant-width circuits of polynomial size and polylogarithmic genus. This extends a characterization given by Hansen, showing that planar constant-width circuits also characterize ACC$^0$. Thus polylogarithmic genus provides no additional computational power in this model. We consider other generalizations of planarity, including crossing number and thickness. We show that constant-width circuits of polynomial size and thickness two already suffice to capture all of NC$^1$.

cs.CC