Smaller Low-Depth Circuits for Kronecker Powers

Abstract

We give new, smaller constructions of constant-depth linear circuits for computing any matrix which is the Kronecker power of a fixed matrix. A standard argument (e.g., the mixed product property of Kronecker products, or a generalization of the Fast Walsh-Hadamard transform) shows that any such N × N matrix has a depth-2 circuit of size O(N1.5). We improve on this for all such matrices, and especially for some such matrices of particular interest: - For any integer q > 1 and any matrix which is the Kronecker power of a fixed q × q matrix, we construct a depth-2 circuit of size O(N1.5 - aq), where aq > 0 is a positive constant depending only on q. No bound beating size O(N1.5) was previously known for any q>2. - For the case q=2, i.e., for any matrix which is the Kronecker power of a fixed 2 × 2 matrix, we construct a depth-2 circuit of size O(N1.446), improving the prior best size O(N1.493) [Alman, 2021]. - For the Walsh-Hadamard transform, we construct a depth-2 circuit of size O(N1.443), improving the prior best size O(N1.476) [Alman, 2021]. - For the disjointness matrix (the communication matrix of set disjointness, or equivalently, the matrix for the linear transform that evaluates a multilinear polynomial on all 0/1 inputs), we construct a depth-2 circuit of size O(N1.258), improving the prior best size O(N1.272) [Jukna and Sergeev, 2013]. Our constructions also generalize to improving the standard construction for any depth ≤ O( N). Our main technical tool is an improved way to convert a nontrivial circuit for any matrix into a circuit for its Kronecker powers. Our new bounds provably could not be achieved using the approaches of prior work.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…