Smaller ACC0 Circuits for Symmetric Functions

Abstract

What is the power of constant-depth circuits with MODm gates, that can count modulo m? Can they efficiently compute MAJORITY and other symmetric functions? When m is a constant prime power, the answer is well understood: Razborov and Smolensky proved in the 1980s that MAJORITY and MODm require super-polynomial-size MODq circuits, where q is any prime power not dividing m. However, relatively little is known about the power of MODm circuits for non-prime-power m. For example, it is still open whether every problem in EXP can be computed by depth-3 circuits of polynomial size and only MOD6 gates. We shed some light on the difficulty of proving lower bounds for MODm circuits, by giving new upper bounds. We construct MODm circuits computing symmetric functions with non-prime power m, with size-depth tradeoffs that beat the longstanding lower bounds for AC0[m] circuits for prime power m. Our size-depth tradeoff circuits have essentially optimal dependence on m and d in the exponent, under a natural circuit complexity hypothesis. For example, we show for every > 0 that every symmetric function can be computed with depth-3 MODm circuits of (O(n)) size, for a constant m depending only on > 0. That is, depth-3 CC0 circuits can compute any symmetric function in subexponential size. This demonstrates a significant difference in the power of depth-3 CC0 circuits, compared to other models: for certain symmetric functions, depth-3 AC0 circuits require 2(n) size [Hstad 1986], and depth-3 AC0[pk] circuits (for fixed prime power pk) require 2(n1/6) size [Smolensky 1987]. Even for depth-two MODp MODm circuits, 2(n) lower bounds were known [Barrington Straubing Th\'erien 1990].

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…