Tight Fourier Tails for AC0 Circuits

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Polynomial Method In Quantum and Classical Computing Scott Aaronson (MIT) OPEN PROBLEM.
Advertisements

Quantum Lower Bounds You probably Havent Seen Before (which doesnt imply that you dont know OF them) Scott Aaronson, UC Berkeley 9/24/2002.
Quantum Lower Bounds The Polynomial and Adversary Methods Scott Aaronson September 14, 2001 Prelim Exam Talk.
Limitations of Quantum Advice and One-Way Communication Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley IAS Useful?
How to Solve Longstanding Open Problems In Quantum Computing Using Only Fourier Analysis Scott Aaronson (MIT) For those who hate quantum: The open problems.
Scott Aaronson BQP und PH A tale of two strong-willed complexity classes… A 16-year-old quest to find an oracle that separates them… A solution at lastbut.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) BQP and PH A tale of two strong-willed complexity classes… A 16-year-old quest to find an oracle that separates them… A solution at.
Agnostically Learning Decision Trees Parikshit Gopalan MSR-Silicon Valley, IITB00. Adam Tauman Kalai MSR-New England Adam R. Klivans UT Austin
Parikshit Gopalan Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Hardness Amplification within NP against Deterministic Algorithms Parikshit Gopalan U Washington & MSR-SVC Venkatesan Guruswami U Washington & IAS.
Bounded-depth circuits: Separating wires from gates Michal Koucký Joint work with: Pavel Pudlák and Denis Thérien.
Pseudorandomness from Shrinkage David Zuckerman University of Texas at Austin Joint with Russell Impagliazzo and Raghu Meka.
How to Fool People to Work on Circuit Lower Bounds Ran Raz Weizmann Institute & Microsoft Research.
Approximate List- Decoding and Hardness Amplification Valentine Kabanets (SFU) joint work with Russell Impagliazzo and Ragesh Jaiswal (UCSD)
An Efficient Membership-Query Algorithm for Learning DNF with Respect to the Uniform Distribution Jeffrey C. Jackson Presented By: Eitan Yaakobi Tamar.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) Forrelation A problem admitting enormous quantum speedup, which I and others have studied under various names over the years, which.
Linear Systems With Composite Moduli Arkadev Chattopadhyay (University of Toronto) Joint with: Avi Wigderson TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint.
Hardness amplification proofs require majority Ronen Shaltiel University of Haifa Joint work with Emanuele Viola Columbia University June 2008.
Better Pseudorandom Generators from Milder Pseudorandom Restrictions Raghu Meka (IAS) Parikshit Gopalan, Omer Reingold (MSR-SVC) Luca Trevian (Stanford),
Two Sides of the Coin Problem Gil Cohen Joint with: Anat Ganor and Ran Raz.
Non-Uniform ACC Circuit Lower Bounds Ryan Williams IBM Almaden TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA A A.
Analysis of Boolean Functions Fourier Analysis, Projections, Influence, Junta, Etc… And (some) applications Slides prepared with help of Ricky Rosen.
On the Fourier Tails of Bounded Functions over the Discrete Cube Irit Dinur, Ehud Friedgut, and Ryan O’Donnell Joint work with Guy Kindler Microsoft Research.
Derandomization: New Results and Applications Emanuele Viola Harvard University March 2006.
Arithmetic Hardness vs. Randomness Valentine Kabanets SFU.
Hardness amplification proofs require majority Emanuele Viola Columbia University Work done at Harvard, IAS, and Columbia Joint work with Ronen Shaltiel.
Primer on Fourier Analysis Dana Moshkovitz Princeton University and The Institute for Advanced Study.
Quantum Computing MAS 725 Hartmut Klauck NTU TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A A.
Continuous Distributions The Uniform distribution from a to b.
On approximate majority and probabilistic time Emanuele Viola Institute for advanced study Work done during Ph.D. at Harvard University June 2007.
Polynomials Emanuele Viola Columbia University work partially done at IAS and Harvard University December 2007.
Fourier Transforms in Computer Science. Can a function [0,2  ] z R be expressed as a linear combination of sin nx, cos nx ? If yes, how do we find the.
MA4229 Lectures 9, 10 Weeks 5-7 Sept 7 - Oct 1, 2010 Chapter 7 The theory of minimax approximation Chapter 8 The exchange algorithm.
Norms, XOR lemmas, and lower bounds for GF(2) polynomials and multiparty protocols Emanuele Viola, IAS (Work partially done during postdoc at Harvard)
Pseudorandom Bits for Constant-Depth Circuits with Few Arbitrary Symmetric Gates Emanuele Viola Harvard University June 2005.
Smooth Boolean Functions are Easy: Efficient Algorithms for Low-Sensitivity Functions Rocco Servedio Joint work with Parikshit Gopalan (MSR) Noam Nisan.
List Decoding Using the XOR Lemma Luca Trevisan U.C. Berkeley.
Hardness amplification proofs require majority Emanuele Viola Columbia University Work also done at Harvard and IAS Joint work with Ronen Shaltiel University.
Lower Bounds Emanuele Viola Columbia University February 2008.
Pseudorandomness: New Results and Applications Emanuele Viola IAS April 2007.
Complexity Theory and Explicit Constructions of Ramsey Graphs Rahul Santhanam University of Edinburgh.
1 IAS, Princeton ASCR, Prague. The Problem How to solve it by hand ? Use the polynomial-ring axioms ! associativity, commutativity, distributivity, 0/1-elements.
Imperfectly Shared Randomness
Random projections and depth hierarchy theorems
Dana Ron Tel Aviv University
Negation-Limited Formulas
Degree and Sensitivity: tails of two distributions
Circuit Lower Bounds A combinatorial approach to P vs NP
Sum of Squares, Planted Clique, and Pseudo-Calibration
Joint work with Avishay Tal (IAS) and Jiapeng Zhang (UCSD)
Pseudorandomness when the odds are against you
Background: Lattices and the Learning-with-Errors problem
An average-case lower bound against ACC0
My Favorite Ten Complexity Theorems of the Past Decade II
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures
Linear sketching with parities
ASV Chapters 1 - Sample Spaces and Probabilities
Linear sketching over
Linear sketching with parities
Finite Model Theory Lecture 6
DNF Sparsification and Counting
Indistinguishability by adaptive procedures with advice, and lower bounds on hardness amplification proofs Aryeh Grinberg, U. Haifa Ronen.
Switching Lemmas and Proof Complexity
Oracle Separation of BQP and PH
On Derandomizing Algorithms that Err Extremely Rarely
Continuous Distributions
Recent Structure Lemmas for Depth-Two Threshold Circuits
Stronger Connections Between Circuit Analysis and Circuit Lower Bounds, via PCPs of Proximity Lijie Chen Ryan Williams.
Oracle Separation of BQP and PH
Emanuele Viola Harvard University October 2005
Presentation transcript:

Tight Fourier Tails for AC0 Circuits Avishay Tal (IAS) CCC ’2017

Bounded Depth Circuits A C 0 (𝑚,𝑑): 𝑛 variables 𝑚 gates (size of the circuit) depth 𝑑 alternating gates A C 0 ≔A C 0 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑛 ,𝑂 1

Brief History Parity 𝑥 1 , …, 𝑥 𝑛 = 𝑥 1 + 𝑥 2 +…+ 𝑥 𝑛 (𝑚𝑜𝑑 2) [Ajtai’83, Furst-Saxe-Sipser’84, Yao’85]: Parity is not in AC0 [Håstad ’86]: any depth-𝑑 circuit computing parity is of size at least exp 𝑛 1/(𝑑−1) . Result is tight: there exists a circuit of size exp 𝑛 1/(𝑑−1) and depth 𝑑 computing Parity Challenge: Give an explicit function with better lower bounds. Really good lower bounds will imply lower bounds for NC1 & log-space.

Brief History [Linial-Mansour-Nisan’89]: Bounded depth circuits are well-approximated in L2 by low degree polynomials. Theorem: Let 𝑓∈A C 0 (𝑚,𝑑). Then, ∃𝑝 of deg p =𝑂 log 𝑚/𝜀 𝑑 s.t. 𝐄 𝑥 𝑝 𝑥 −𝑓 𝑥 2 ≤𝜀 [Håstad ’12]: any 𝑓∈A C 0 (𝑚,𝑑) may agree with Parity on at most 1 2 + exp⁡(−𝑛/ log (𝑚) 𝑑−1 ) of the inputs. [Imagaliazzo-Matthews-Paturi’12]: … 1 2 +exp⁡(−𝑛/ log (𝑚/𝑛) 𝑑−1 ) [Håstad ’12] and [IMP’12] results are tight!

Discrete Fourier Analysis 101 For functions 𝑓,𝑔: −1,1 𝑛 →ℝ define inner-product as 𝑓,𝑔 = 𝑬 𝑥 [𝑓 𝑥 ⋅𝑔(𝑥)] The characters 𝜒 𝑆 𝑥 = 𝑖∈𝑆 𝑥 𝑖 for 𝑆⊆[𝑛] form an orthonormal basis. Hence, any function 𝑓: −1,1 𝑛 →ℝ has a unique expansion 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑆⊆[𝑛] 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ 𝑖∈𝑆 𝑥 𝑖 called the Fourier expansion. The Fourier coefficients 𝑓 (𝑆) are real numbers given by 𝑓 𝑆 = 𝑓, 𝜒 𝑆 = 𝐄 𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 ⋅ 𝑖∈𝑆 𝑥 𝑖 Plancherel’s Identity: 𝐄 𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 ⋅𝑔(𝑥) = 𝑓,𝑔 = 𝑆 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ 𝑔 (𝑆) Parseval’s Identity: 𝐄 𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 2 = 𝑓,𝑓 = 𝑆 𝑓 𝑆 2 If 𝑓 is Boolean, i.e., 𝑓: −1,1 𝑛 →{−1,1}, then 𝑆 𝑓 𝑆 2 =1 Example: Majority MAJ(x_1, x_2, x_3) = ½ x1 + ½ x2 + ½ x3 – ½ x1x2x3

Discrete Fourier Analysis 101 The Fourier transform of a Boolean function 𝑓 naturally defines a distribution 𝐷 𝑓 over sets 𝑆⊆[𝑛]: Denote by 𝐖 𝑘 𝑓 = 𝐏𝐫 𝑆∼ 𝐷 𝑓 [|𝑆|=𝑘] = 𝑆:|𝑆|=𝑘 𝑓 𝑆 2 Denote by 𝐖 ≥𝑘 𝑓 = 𝐏𝐫 𝑆∼ 𝐷 𝑓 [ 𝑆 ≥𝑘] = 𝑆: 𝑆 ≥𝑘 𝑓 𝑆 2 The probability to sample 𝑆 from 𝐷 𝑓 equals 𝑓 𝑆 2 .

Tails and Low-Degree Approximation Equivalence Let 𝑓: −1,1 𝑛 →ℝ. The truncated Fourier expansion of 𝑓 at level 𝑘 is a degree 𝑘 polynomial defined by 𝑓 ≤𝑘 𝑥 = 𝑆: 𝑆 ≤𝑘 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ 𝑖∈𝑆 𝑥 𝑖 By Parseval: 𝐄 𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 − 𝑓 ≤𝑘 𝑥 2 = 𝑾 >𝑘 [𝑓]. By Parseval: this is the best L2-approx. of 𝑓 among degree 𝑘 polys. 𝑓 has a degree-𝑘 L2-approximation with error 𝜀 iff 𝑾 >𝑘 𝑓 ≤𝜀

𝐖 𝑘 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐖 𝑘 𝑓

Comparison of Results in Fourier language W 𝑘 𝑓 LMN’89 exp − 𝑘 1/𝑑 decay Boppana’97 Our Result 1/𝑘 decay Håstad’01 Lower Bound exp −𝑘 decay Håstad’12 IMP’12 𝑘 log 𝑚 𝑑−1 log 𝑚 𝑑 𝑛

Comparison of Results in Polynomial Language If 𝑓 can be computed by a circuit with size 𝑚 and depth 𝑑, then 𝑓 can be 𝜀-approximated in L2 by polynomials of degree: LMN’89 𝑂(log 𝑚/𝜀 𝑑 ) Boppana’97 𝑂(log 𝑚 𝑑−1 /𝜀) Håstad’01 𝑂(log 𝑚/𝜀 𝑑−2 ⋅ log (𝑚) ⋅ log (1/𝜀) ) This Work 𝑂(log 𝑚 𝑑−1 ⋅ log (1/𝜀) )

Main Theorem A significant improvement for 𝜀≪ 1 poly(𝑚) . If 𝑓 can be computed by a circuit of size 𝑚 and depth 𝑑, then ∀𝑘: 𝑾 ≥𝑘 𝑓 ≤ exp −𝑘/ log (𝑚) 𝑑−1 . Alternatively, 𝑓 can be 𝜀-approximated in L2 by a polynomial of degree 𝑂 log 𝑚 𝑑−1 ⋅ log 1/𝜀 . 𝑾 𝑘 𝑓 A significant improvement for 𝜀≪ 1 poly(𝑚) . Tight (for any 𝑚≫𝑛)

Applications to Pseudo-randomness F PRG A distribution 𝐷 over ±1 𝑛 is pseudorandom for crkts of class 𝐶 if ∀𝑓∈𝐶: 𝐄 𝑥~𝐷 𝑓 𝑥 ≈ 𝜀 𝐄 𝑥∼𝑈 [𝑓 𝑥 ] A pseudo-random generator (PRG) for 𝐶 is a function PRG: −1,1 𝑠 → −1,1 𝑛 such that PRG( 𝑈 𝑠 ) is pseudorandom for 𝐶.

Summary of Applications

Why should we care? Why are we not satisfied by exp − 𝑘 1/𝑑 decay in tails and want exp −𝑘 decay? Motivating question: give a Fourier analytical proof that Majority cannot be approximated by AC0 circuits. (Other proofs: [Smolensky’93, O’Donnell-Wimmer’07]) 𝑓∈A C 0 𝐖 𝑘 𝑓 𝐖 𝑘 MAJ polylog(𝑛)

Different Notions of Fourier Concentration Let 𝑓 be a Boolean function and 𝑡 a parameter. TFAE: for all k: 𝐖 ≥𝑘 𝑓 ≤ 𝑒⋅ 𝑒 −𝑘/𝑂(𝑡) for all k: 𝐄 𝑆∼ 𝐷 𝑓 |𝑆| 𝑘 ≤𝑂 𝑡 𝑘 for all p, k: 𝐏𝐫 𝜌∼ 𝑅 p ⁡ deg 𝑓 𝜌 ≥𝑘 ≤𝑂 𝑝𝑡 𝑘 . and they imply Exp. Small Fourier Tails Fourier Moments “Switching Lemma” 𝑆: 𝑆 =𝑘 | 𝑓 𝑆 | =𝑂 𝑡 𝑘

Majority is not approximated by AC0 Problem: both MAJ and AC0 are concentrated on lower levels of the Fourier spectrum. Idea: Recall 𝑓∈𝐀 𝐂 𝟎  𝑆 =𝑘 𝑓 𝑆 ≤polylog 𝑛 𝑘 .  on the k’th level, 𝑓’s Fourier mass is concentrated on only polylog 𝑛 𝑘 coefs out of all the 𝑛 𝑘 coefs. Since MAJ is symmetric, it spreads its Fourier weight equally within each layer: every coefficient in the k’th level is at most 1 𝑛 𝑘 .

Majority is not approximated by AC0 Using Plancherel: 𝐄 𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 ⋅MAJ 𝑥 = 𝑆 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ MAJ 𝑆 ≤ 𝑘=1 𝑛 𝑆 =𝑘 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ MAJ 𝑆 For 1≤𝑘< 𝑛 0.1 : 𝑆 =𝑘 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ MAJ 𝑆 ≤ polylog 𝑛 𝑘 𝑛 𝑘 For 𝑘≥ 𝑛 0.1 : 𝑆 ≥ 𝑛 0.1 𝑓 𝑆 ⋅ MAJ 𝑆 ≤ 𝑆≥ 𝑛 0.1 𝑓 𝑆 2 ⋅ 𝑆≥ 𝑛 0.1 MAJ 𝑆 2 = 𝐖 ≥ 𝑛 0.1 𝑓 ⋅ 𝐖 ≥ 𝑛 0.1 MAJ ≤ exp (− 𝑛 0.1 /polylog 𝑛 ) ≪ 1 𝑛  𝐄 𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 ⋅MAJ 𝑥 ≤ polylog 𝑛 𝑛

Open Question Which distributions fool AC0? [Aaronson’10, Fefferman-Shaltiel-Umans-Viola’12] Can you find a distribution which is pseudorandom for AC0 but not pseudorandom for log-time quantum algorithms? F  an oracle separation between BQP from PH

Exponentially Small Fourier Tails Definition: 𝑓 has ESFT(t) if for all 𝑘: 𝐖 ≥𝑘 𝑓 ≤ 𝑒⋅ 𝑒 −𝑘/𝑡 Several interesting classes of functions have ESFT(t) CNFs/DNFs of width-𝑤 [Håstad’86, LMN’89] 𝑡 = 𝑂(𝑤) Formulas of size 𝑚 [Reichardt’11] 𝑡 = 𝑂 𝑚 Read-Once Formulas [Impagliazzo-Kabanets’14] 𝑡 = 𝑂 𝑛 1/3.27 Circuits of size 𝑚 and depth 𝑑 𝑡 = 𝑂( log 𝑚 𝑑−1 ) Functions with max-sensitivity 𝑠 [Gopalan-Servedio-T-Wigderson’16]: 𝑡 = 𝑂(𝑠)

Thank You!