Results 1  10
of
86
The NPcompleteness column: an ongoing guide
 JOURNAL OF ALGORITHMS
, 1987
"... This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book "Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness," W. H. Freem ..."
Abstract

Cited by 239 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book "Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness," W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "[G&J]"; previous columns will be referred to by their dates). A background equivalent to that provided by [G&J] is assumed, and, when appropriate, crossreferences will be given to that book and the list of problems (NPcomplete and harder) presented there. Readers who have results they would like mentioned (NPhardness, PSPACEhardness, polynomialtimesolvability, etc.) or open problems they would like publicized, should
On Uniformity within NC¹
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND SYSTEM SCIENCES
, 1990
"... In order to study circuit complexity classes within NC¹ in a uniform setting, we need a uniformity condition which is more restrictive than those in common use. Two such conditions, stricter than NC¹ uniformity [Ru81,Co85], have appeared in recent research: Immerman's families of circuits defin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 127 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In order to study circuit complexity classes within NC¹ in a uniform setting, we need a uniformity condition which is more restrictive than those in common use. Two such conditions, stricter than NC¹ uniformity [Ru81,Co85], have appeared in recent research: Immerman's families of circuits defined by firstorder formulas [Im87a,Im87b] and a uniformity corresponding to Buss' deterministic logtime reductions [Bu87]. We show that these two notions are equivalent, leading to a natural notion of uniformity for lowlevel circuit complexity classes. We show that recent results on the structure of NC¹ [Ba89] still hold true in this very uniform setting. Finally, we investigate a parallel notion of uniformity, still more restrictive, based on the regular languages. Here we give characterizations of subclasses of the regular languages based on their logical expressibility, extending recent work of Straubing, Th'erien, and Thomas [STT88]. A preliminary version of this work appeared as [BIS88].
The polynomial method in circuit complexity,
 Proc. of 8th Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference
, 1993
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Randomizing Polynomials: A New Representation with Applications to RoundEfficient Secure Computation
 In Proc. 41st FOCS
, 2000
"... Motivated by questions about secure multiparty computation, we introduce and study a new natural representation of functions by polynomials, which we term randomizing polynomials. "Standard" lowdegree polynomials over a finite field are easy to compute with a small number of communicatio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Motivated by questions about secure multiparty computation, we introduce and study a new natural representation of functions by polynomials, which we term randomizing polynomials. "Standard" lowdegree polynomials over a finite field are easy to compute with a small number of communication rounds in virtually any setting for secure computation. However, most Boolean functions cannot be evaluated by a polynomial whose degree is smaller than their input size. We get around this barrier by relaxing the requirement of evaluatingf into a weaker requirement of randomizing f: mapping the inputs of f along with independent random inputs into a vector of outputs, whose distribution depends only on the value of f . We show that degree3 polynomials are sufficient to randomize any function f , relating the efficiency of such a randomization to the branching program size of f . On the other hand, by characterizing the exact class of Boolean functio...
Representing Boolean Functions As Polynomials Modulo Composite Numbers
 Computational Complexity
, 1994
"... . Define the MODm degree of a boolean function F to be the smallest degree of any polynomial P , over the ring of integers modulo m, such that for all 01 assignments ~x, F (~x) = 0 iff P (~x) = 0. We obtain the unexpected result that the MODm degree of the OR of N variables is O( r p N ), wher ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
. Define the MODm degree of a boolean function F to be the smallest degree of any polynomial P , over the ring of integers modulo m, such that for all 01 assignments ~x, F (~x) = 0 iff P (~x) = 0. We obtain the unexpected result that the MODm degree of the OR of N variables is O( r p N ), where r is the number of distinct prime factors of m. This is optimal in the case of representation by symmetric polynomials. The MOD n function is 0 if the number of input ones is a multiple of n and is one otherwise. We show that the MODm degree of both the MOD n and :MOD n functions is N\Omega\Gamma1/ exactly when there is a prime dividing n but not m. The MODm degree of the MODm function is 1; we show that the MODm degree of :MODm is N\Omega\Gamma30 if m is not a power of a prime, O(1) otherwise. A corollary is that there exists an oracle relative to which the MODmP classes (such as \PhiP) have this structure: MODmP is closed under complementation and union iff m is a prime power, and...
Algebrization: A new barrier in complexity theory
 MIT Theory of Computing Colloquium
, 2007
"... Any proof of P � = NP will have to overcome two barriers: relativization and natural proofs. Yet over the last decade, we have seen circuit lower bounds (for example, that PP does not have linearsize circuits) that overcome both barriers simultaneously. So the question arises of whether there is a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 53 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Any proof of P � = NP will have to overcome two barriers: relativization and natural proofs. Yet over the last decade, we have seen circuit lower bounds (for example, that PP does not have linearsize circuits) that overcome both barriers simultaneously. So the question arises of whether there is a third barrier to progress on the central questions in complexity theory. In this paper we present such a barrier, which we call algebraic relativization or algebrization. The idea is that, when we relativize some complexity class inclusion, we should give the simulating machine access not only to an oracle A, but also to a lowdegree extension of A over a finite field or ring. We systematically go through basic results and open problems in complexity theory to delineate the power of the new algebrization barrier. First, we show that all known nonrelativizing results based on arithmetization—both inclusions such as IP = PSPACE and MIP = NEXP, and separations such as MAEXP � ⊂ P/poly —do indeed algebrize. Second, we show that almost all of the major open problems—including P versus NP, P versus RP, and NEXP versus P/poly—will require nonalgebrizing techniques. In some cases algebrization seems to explain exactly why progress stopped where it did: for example, why we have superlinear circuit lower bounds for PromiseMA but not for NP. Our second set of results follows from lower bounds in a new model of algebraic query complexity, which we introduce in this paper and which is interesting in its own right. Some of our lower bounds use direct combinatorial and algebraic arguments, while others stem from a surprising connection between our model and communication complexity. Using this connection, we are also able to give an MAprotocol for the Inner Product function with O ( √ n log n) communication (essentially matching a lower bound of Klauck), as well as a communication complexity conjecture whose truth would imply NL � = NP. 1
On the Computational Power of Depth 2 Circuits with Threshold and Modulo Gates
, 2000
"... We investigate the computational power of depth two circuits consisting of MOD r gates at the bottom and a threshold gate with arbitrary weights at the top (for short, thresholdMOD r circuits) and circuits with two levels of MOD gates (MOD p MOD q circuits). In particular, we will show ..."
Abstract

Cited by 52 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate the computational power of depth two circuits consisting of MOD r gates at the bottom and a threshold gate with arbitrary weights at the top (for short, thresholdMOD r circuits) and circuits with two levels of MOD gates (MOD p MOD q circuits). In particular, we will show the following results. (i) For all prime numbers p and integers q; r, it holds that if p divides r but not q then all thresholdMOD q circuits for MOD r have exponentially many nodes. (ii) For all integers r, all problems computable by depth two fAND;OR;NOTg circuits of polynomial size have thresholdMOD r circuits with polynomially many edges. (iii) There is a problem computable by depth 3 fAND;OR;NOTgcircuits of linear size and constant bottom fanin which for all r needs thresholdMOD r circuits with exponentially many nodes. (iv) For p; r different primes, and q 2; k positive integers, where r does not divide q; every MOD p k MOD q circuit for MOD r has e...
Lower Bounds and Separations for Constant Depth Multilinear Circuits
"... We prove an exponential lower bound for the size of constant depth multilinear arithmetic circuits computing either the determinant or the permanent (a circuit is called multilinear, if the polynomial computed by each of its gates is multilinear). We also prove a superpolynomial separation between ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove an exponential lower bound for the size of constant depth multilinear arithmetic circuits computing either the determinant or the permanent (a circuit is called multilinear, if the polynomial computed by each of its gates is multilinear). We also prove a superpolynomial separation between the size of productdepth 1 d and productdepth d + 1 multilinear circuits (where d is constant). That is, there exists a polynomial f such that • There exists a multilinear circuit of productdepth d + 1 and of polynomial size computing f. • Every multilinear circuit of productdepth d computing f has superpolynomial size. 1
A Uniform Circuit Lower Bound for the Permanent
 SIAM Journal on Computing
, 1994
"... We show that uniform families of ACC circuits of subexponential size cannot compute the permanent function. This also implies similar lower bounds for certain sets in PP. This is one of the very few examples of a lower bound in circuit complexity whose proof hinges on the uniformity condition; it is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that uniform families of ACC circuits of subexponential size cannot compute the permanent function. This also implies similar lower bounds for certain sets in PP. This is one of the very few examples of a lower bound in circuit complexity whose proof hinges on the uniformity condition; it is still unknown if there is any set in Ntime #2 n O#1# # that does not have nonuniform ACC circuits.