Skip to main content

An Average-Case Lower Bound Against \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
LATIN 2018: Theoretical Informatics (LATIN 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10807))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In a seminal work, Williams [22] showed that \(\mathsf {NEXP}\) (non-deterministic exponential time) does not have polynomial-size \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\) circuits. Williams’ technique inherently gives a worst-case lower bound, and until now, no average-case version of his result was known. We show that there is a language L in \(\mathsf {NEXP}\) and a function \(\varepsilon (n) = 1/\log (n)^{\omega (1)}\) such that no sequence of polynomial size \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\) circuits solves L on more than a \(1/2+\varepsilon (n)\) fraction of inputs of length n for all large enough n. Complementing this result, we give a nontrivial pseudo-random generator against polynomial-size \(\mathsf {AC}^0[6]\) circuits. We also show that learning algorithms for quasi-polynomial size \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\) circuits running in time \(2^n/n^\omega (1)\) imply lower bounds for the randomised exponential time classes \(\mathsf {RE}\) (randomized time \(2^{O(n)}\) with one-sided error) and \(\mathsf {ZPE}/1\) (zero-error randomized time \(2^{O(n)}\) with 1 bit of advice) against polynomial size \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\) circuits. This strengthens results of Oliveira and Santhanam [15].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This corresponds to monotone error-correcting codes, which cannot have good distance. We refer to [4] for more details.

  2. 2.

    We stick to modulo 6 gates mostly for simplicity. Theorem 2 can be extended to any modulus m for which the results from [7] hold.

  3. 3.

    In other words, the non-deterministic algorithm, when given the correct advice bit (that only depends on the input length parameter), outputs either “abort” of the correct string, and outputs the correct string in at least one computation path. We refer to Sect. 3.1 for more details.

  4. 4.

    For a concrete example of the benefits of improving an \(\mathsf {NEXP}\) lower bound to randomized exponential time classes such as \(\mathsf {REXP}\), we refer the reader to [15].

  5. 5.

    The design of concrete non-trivial learning algorithms for some circuit classes and in some alternative but related learning models has been recently investigated in [17].

  6. 6.

    Note that the process of amplifying the success probability of randomized algorithms and fixing the randomness can be done with only an \(\mathsf {AC}^0\) overhead on the overall complexity, since approximate majority functions can be computed in this circuit class.

References

  1. TCS Stack Exchange: How powerful is \(\sf ACC^0\) circuit class in average case? https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/37232. Accessed 27 Sept 2017

  2. Ajtai, M.: \(\varSigma ^{1}_{1}\)-formulae on finite structures. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 24(1), 1–48 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-0072(83)90038-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Arora, S., Barak, B.: Complexity Theory: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Buresh-Oppenheim, J., Kabanets, V., Santhanam, R.: Uniform hardness amplification in NP via monotone codes. In: Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) TR06-154 (2006). https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/eccc-reports/2006/TR06-154/

  5. Carmosino, M.L., Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., Kolokolova, A.: Learning algorithms from natural proofs. In: Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pp. 10:1–10:24 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2016.10

  6. Chen, R., Oliveira, I.C., Santhanam, R.: An average-case lower bound against ACC\(^0\). In: Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) TR17-173 (2017). https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2017/173/

  7. Fefferman, B., Shaltiel, R., Umans, C., Viola, E.: On beating the hybrid argument. Theory Comput. 9, 809–843 (2013). https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2013.v009a026

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Furst, M., Saxe, J.B., Sipser, M.: Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Syst. Theory 17(1), 13–27 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01744431

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldwasser, S., Gutfreund, D., Healy, A., Kaufman, T., Rothblum, G.N.: Verifying and decoding in constant depth. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 440–449 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1250790.1250855

  10. Gutfreund, D., Rothblum, G.N.: The complexity of local list decoding. In: Goel, A., Jansen, K., Rolim, J.D.P., Rubinfeld, R. (eds.) APPROX/RANDOM -2008. LNCS, vol. 5171, pp. 455–468. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85363-3_36

    Google Scholar 

  11. Håstad, J.: Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 6–20 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1145/12130.12132

  12. Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., Volkovich, I.: The power of natural properties as oracles. In: Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) TR17-023 (2017). https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2017/023/

  13. Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: Hardness vs randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49(2), 149–167 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0000(05)80043-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Oliveira, I.C., Santhanam, R.: Conspiracies between learning algorithms, circuit lower bounds, and pseudorandomness. In: Computational Complexity Conference (CCC), pp. 18:1–18:49 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2017.18

  15. Oliveira, I.C., Santhanam, R.: Pseudodeterministic constructions in subexponential time. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 665–677 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055500

  16. Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds on the size of bounded-depth networks over the complete basis with logical addition. Math. Notes Acad. Sci. USSR 41(4), 333–338 (1987)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Servedio, R., Tan, L.Y.: What circuit classes can be learned with non-trivial savings? In: Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS), pp. 1–23 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shaltiel, R., Viola, E.: Hardness amplification proofs require majority. SIAM J. Comput. 39(7), 3122–3154 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1137/080735096

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Smolensky, R.: Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity. In: Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 77–82 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1145/28395.28404

  20. Srinivasan, S.: On improved degree lower bounds for polynomial approximation. In: Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS), pp. 201–212 (2013). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2013.201

  21. Sudan, M., Trevisan, L., Vadhan, S.P.: Pseudorandom generators without the XOR lemma. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 62(2), 236–266 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2000.1730

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Williams, R.: Nonuniform ACC circuit lower bounds. J. ACM 61(1), 2:1–2:32 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2559903

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Williams, R.: Natural proofs versus derandomization. SIAM J. Comput. 45(2), 497–529 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1137/130938219

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Yao, A.C.: Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles (preliminary version). In: Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 1–10 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1985.49

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Marco Carmosino for posing the question of proving average-case hardness against \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\), and for useful discussions. This work was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2014)/ERC Grant Agrement no. 615075.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor C. Oliveira .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Chen, R., Oliveira, I.C., Santhanam, R. (2018). An Average-Case Lower Bound Against \(\mathsf {ACC}^0\) . In: Bender, M., Farach-Colton, M., Mosteiro, M. (eds) LATIN 2018: Theoretical Informatics. LATIN 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10807. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77404-6_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77404-6_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77403-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77404-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics