Formulas vs. Circuits for Small Distance Connectivity

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Abstract

We give the first super-polynomial separation in the power of bounded-depth boolean formulas vs. circuits. Specifically, we consider the problem Distance k(n)k(n) Connectivity, which asks whether two specified nodes in a graph of size nn are connected by a path of length at most k(n)k(n). This problem is solvable (by the recursive doubling technique) on {\bf circuits} of depth O(log⁡k)O(\log k) and size O(kn3)O(kn^3). In contrast, we show that solving this problem on {\bf formulas} of depth log⁡n/(log⁡log⁡n)O(1)\log n/(\log\log n)^{O(1)} requires size nΩ(log⁡k)n^{Ω(\log k)} for all k(n)≤log⁡log⁡nk(n) \leq \log\log n. As corollaries: (i) It follows that polynomial-size circuits for Distance k(n)k(n) Connectivity require depth Ω(log⁡k)Ω(\log k) for all k(n)≤log⁡log⁡nk(n) \leq \log\log n. This matches the upper bound from recursive doubling and improves a previous Ω(log⁡log⁡k)Ω(\log\log k) lower bound of Beame, Pitassi and Impagliazzo [BIP98]. (ii) We get a tight lower bound of sΩ(d)s^{Ω(d)} on the size required to simulate size-ss depth-dd circuits by depth-dd formulas for all s(n)=nO(1)s(n) = n^{O(1)} and d(n)≤log⁡log⁡log⁡nd(n) \leq \log\log\log n. No lower bound better than sΩ(1)s^{Ω(1)} was previously known for any d(n)≰O(1)d(n) \nleq O(1). Our proof technique is centered on a new notion of pathset complexity, which roughly speaking measures the minimum cost of constructing a set of (partial) paths in a universe of size nn via the operations of union and relational join, subject to certain density constraints. Half of our proof shows that bounded-depth formulas solving Distance k(n)k(n) Connectivity imply upper bounds on pathset complexity. The other half is a combinatorial lower bound on pathset complexity.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.