Showing 1–9 of 9 results for author: Chillara, S

Fractional Subadditivity of Submodular Functions: Equality Conditions and Their Applications

Authors: Gunank Jakhar, Gowtham R. Kurri, Suryajith Chillara, Vinod M. Prabhakaran

Abstract: Submodular functions are known to satisfy various forms of fractional subadditivity. This work investigates the conditions for equality to hold exactly or approximately in the fractional subadditivity of submodular functions. We establish that a small gap in the inequality implies that the function is close to being modular, and that the gap is zero if and only if the function is modular. We then… ▽ More Submodular functions are known to satisfy various forms of fractional subadditivity. This work investigates the conditions for equality to hold exactly or approximately in the fractional subadditivity of submodular functions. We establish that a small gap in the inequality implies that the function is close to being modular, and that the gap is zero if and only if the function is modular. We then present natural implications of these results for special cases of submodular functions, such as entropy, relative entropy, and matroid rank. As a consequence, we characterize the necessary and sufficient conditions for equality to hold in Shearer's lemma, recovering a result of Ellis \emph{et al.} (2016) as a special case. We leverage our results to propose a new multivariate mutual information, which generalizes Watanabe's total correlation (1960), Han's dual total correlation (1978), and Csiszár and Narayan's shared information (2004), and analyze its properties. Among these properties, we extend Watanabe's characterization of total correlation as the maximum correlation over partitions to fractional partitions. When applied to matrix determinantal inequalities for positive definite matrices, our results recover the equality conditions of the classical determinantal inequalities of Hadamard, Szász, and Fischer as special cases. △ Less

Submitted 21 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

Comments: 13 pages

On Hardness of Testing Equivalence to Sparse Polynomials Under Shifts

Authors: Suryajith Chillara, Coral Grichener, Amir Shpilka

Abstract: We say that two given polynomials $f, g \in R[X]$, over a ring $R$, are equivalent under shifts if there exists a vector $a \in R^n$ such that $f(X+a) = g(X)$. Grigoriev and Karpinski (FOCS 1990), Lakshman and Saunders (SICOMP, 1995), and Grigoriev and Lakshman (ISSAC 1995) studied the problem of testing polynomial equivalence of a given polynomial to any $t$-sparse polynomial, over the rational n… ▽ More We say that two given polynomials $f, g \in R[X]$, over a ring $R$, are equivalent under shifts if there exists a vector $a \in R^n$ such that $f(X+a) = g(X)$. Grigoriev and Karpinski (FOCS 1990), Lakshman and Saunders (SICOMP, 1995), and Grigoriev and Lakshman (ISSAC 1995) studied the problem of testing polynomial equivalence of a given polynomial to any $t$-sparse polynomial, over the rational numbers, and gave exponential time algorithms. In this paper, we provide hardness results for this problem. Formally, for a ring $R$, let $\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ be the following decision problem. Given a polynomial $P(X)$, is there a vector $a$ such that $P(X+a)$ contains fewer monomials than $P(X)$. We show that $\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ is at least as hard as checking if a given system of polynomial equations over $R[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ has a solution (Hilbert's Nullstellensatz). As a consequence of this reduction, we get the following results. 1. $\mathrm{SparseShift}_\mathbb{Z}$ is undecidable. 2. For any ring $R$ (which is not a field) such that $\mathrm{HN}_R$ is $\mathrm{NP}_R$-complete over the Blum-Shub-Smale model of computation, $\mathrm{SparseShift}_{R}$ is also $\mathrm{NP}_{R}$-complete. In particular, $\mathrm{SparseShift}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ is also $\mathrm{NP}_{\mathbb{Z}}$-complete. We also study the gap version of the $\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ and show the following. 1. For every function $β: \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R}_+$ such that $β\in o(1)$, $N^β$-gap-$\mathrm{SparseShift}_\mathbb{Z}$ is also undecidable (where $N$ is the input length). 2. For $R=\mathbb{F}_p, \mathbb{Q}, \mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{Z}_q$ and for every $β>1$ the $β$-gap-$\mathrm{SparseShift}_R$ problem is $\mathrm{NP}$-hard. △ Less

Submitted 21 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Functional lower bounds for restricted arithmetic circuits of depth four

Authors: Suryajith Chillara

Abstract: Recently, Forbes, Kumar and Saptharishi [CCC, 2016] proved that there exists an explicit $d^{O(1)}$-variate and degree $d$ polynomial $P_{d}\in VNP$ such that if any depth four circuit $C$ of bounded formal degree $d$ which computes a polynomial of bounded individual degree $O(1)$, that is functionally equivalent to $P_d$, then $C$ must have size $2^{Ω(\sqrt{d}\log{d})}$. The motivation for thei… ▽ More Recently, Forbes, Kumar and Saptharishi [CCC, 2016] proved that there exists an explicit $d^{O(1)}$-variate and degree $d$ polynomial $P_{d}\in VNP$ such that if any depth four circuit $C$ of bounded formal degree $d$ which computes a polynomial of bounded individual degree $O(1)$, that is functionally equivalent to $P_d$, then $C$ must have size $2^{Ω(\sqrt{d}\log{d})}$. The motivation for their work comes from Boolean Circuit Complexity. Based on a characterization for $ACC^0$ circuits by Yao [FOCS, 1985] and Beigel and Tarui [CC, 1994], Forbes, Kumar and Saptharishi [CCC, 2016] observed that functions in $ACC^0$ can also be computed by algebraic $Σ\mathord{\wedge}ΣΠ$ circuits (i.e., circuits of the form -- sums of powers of polynomials) of $2^{\log^{O(1)}n}$ size. Thus they argued that a $2^{ω(\log^{O(1)}{n})}$ "functional" lower bound for an explicit polynomial $Q$ against $Σ\mathord{\wedge}ΣΠ$ circuits would imply a lower bound for the "corresponding Boolean function" of $Q$ against non-uniform $ACC^0$. In their work, they ask if their lower bound be extended to $Σ\mathord{\wedge}ΣΠ$ circuits. In this paper, for large integers $n$ and $d$ such that $ω(\log^2n)\leq d\leq n^{0.01}$, we show that any $Σ\mathord{\wedge}ΣΠ$ circuit of bounded individual degree at most $O\left(\frac{d}{k^2}\right)$ that functionally computes Iterated Matrix Multiplication polynomial $IMM_{n,d}$ ($\in VP$) over $\{0,1\}^{n^2d}$ must have size $n^{Ω(k)}$. Since Iterated Matrix Multiplication $IMM_{n,d}$ over $\{0,1\}^{n^2d}$ is functionally in $GapL$, improvement of the afore mentioned lower bound to hold for quasipolynomially large values of individual degree would imply a fine-grained separation of $ACC^0$ from $GapL$. △ Less

Submitted 20 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

New Exponential Size Lower Bounds against Depth Four Circuits of Bounded Individual Degree

Authors: Suryajith Chillara

Abstract: Kayal, Saha and Tavenas [Theory of Computing, 2018] showed that for all large enough integers $n$ and $d$ such that $d\geq ω(\log{n})$, any syntactic depth four circuit of bounded individual degree $δ= o(d)$ that computes the Iterated Matrix Multiplication polynomial ($IMM_{n,d}$) must have size $n^{Ω\left(\sqrt{d/δ}\right)}$. Unfortunately, this bound deteriorates as the value of $δ$ increases. F… ▽ More Kayal, Saha and Tavenas [Theory of Computing, 2018] showed that for all large enough integers $n$ and $d$ such that $d\geq ω(\log{n})$, any syntactic depth four circuit of bounded individual degree $δ= o(d)$ that computes the Iterated Matrix Multiplication polynomial ($IMM_{n,d}$) must have size $n^{Ω\left(\sqrt{d/δ}\right)}$. Unfortunately, this bound deteriorates as the value of $δ$ increases. Further, the bound is superpolynomial only when $δ$ is $o(d)$. It is natural to ask if the dependence on $δ$ in the bound could be weakened. Towards this, in an earlier result [STACS, 2020], we showed that for all large enough integers $n$ and $d$ such that $d = Θ(\log^2{n})$, any syntactic depth four circuit of bounded individual degree $δ\leq n^{0.2}$ that computes $IMM_{n,d}$ must have size $n^{Ω(\log{n})}$. In this paper, we make further progress by proving that for all large enough integers $n$ and $d$, and absolute constants $a$ and $b$ such that $ω(\log^2n)\leq d\leq n^{a}$, any syntactic depth four circuit of bounded individual degree $δ\leq n^{b}$ that computes $IMM_{n,d}$ must have size $n^{Ω(\sqrt{d})}$. Our bound is obtained by carefully adapting the proof of Kumar and Saraf [SIAM J. Computing, 2017] to the complexity measure introduced in our earlier work [STACS, 2020]. △ Less

Submitted 19 July, 2021; v1 submitted 12 March, 2020; originally announced March 2020.

A Near-Optimal Depth-Hierarchy Theorem for Small-Depth Multilinear Circuits

Authors: Suryajith Chillara, Christian Engels, Nutan Limaye, Srikanth Srinivasan

Abstract: We study the size blow-up that is necessary to convert an algebraic circuit of product-depth $Δ+1$ to one of product-depth $Δ$ in the multilinear setting. We show that for every positive $Δ= Δ(n) = o(\log n/\log \log n),$ there is an explicit multilinear polynomial $P^{(Δ)}$ on $n$ variables that can be computed by a multilinear formula of product-depth $Δ+1$ and size $O(n)$, but not by any mult… ▽ More We study the size blow-up that is necessary to convert an algebraic circuit of product-depth $Δ+1$ to one of product-depth $Δ$ in the multilinear setting. We show that for every positive $Δ= Δ(n) = o(\log n/\log \log n),$ there is an explicit multilinear polynomial $P^{(Δ)}$ on $n$ variables that can be computed by a multilinear formula of product-depth $Δ+1$ and size $O(n)$, but not by any multilinear circuit of product-depth $Δ$ and size less than $\exp(n^{Ω(1/Δ)})$. This result is tight up to the constant implicit in the double exponent for all $Δ= o(\log n/\log \log n).$ This strengthens a result of Raz and Yehudayoff (Computational Complexity 2009) who prove a quasipolynomial separation for constant-depth multilinear circuits, and a result of Kayal, Nair and Saha (STACS 2016) who give an exponential separation in the case $Δ= 1.$ Our separating examples may be viewed as algebraic analogues of variants of the Graph Reachability problem studied by Chen, Oliveira, Servedio and Tan (STOC 2016), who used them to prove lower bounds for constant-depth Boolean circuits. △ Less

Submitted 7 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.

Small-depth Multilinear Formula Lower Bounds for Iterated Matrix Multiplication, with Applications

Authors: Suryajith Chillara, Nutan Limaye, Srikanth Srinivasan

Abstract: In this paper, we study the algebraic formula complexity of multiplying $d$ many $2\times 2$ matrices, denoted $\mathrm{IMM}_{d}$, and show that the well-known divide-and-conquer algorithm cannot be significantly improved at any depth, as long as the formulas are multilinear. Formally, for each depth $Δ\leq \log d$, we show that any product-depth $Δ$ multilinear formula for $\mathrm{IMM}_d$ must… ▽ More In this paper, we study the algebraic formula complexity of multiplying $d$ many $2\times 2$ matrices, denoted $\mathrm{IMM}_{d}$, and show that the well-known divide-and-conquer algorithm cannot be significantly improved at any depth, as long as the formulas are multilinear. Formally, for each depth $Δ\leq \log d$, we show that any product-depth $Δ$ multilinear formula for $\mathrm{IMM}_d$ must have size $\exp(Ω(Δd^{1/Δ})).$ It also follows from this that any multilinear circuit of product-depth $Δ$ for the same polynomial of the above form must have a size of $\exp(Ω(d^{1/Δ})).$ In particular, any polynomial-sized multilinear formula for $\mathrm{IMM}_d$ must have depth $Ω(\log d)$, and any polynomial-sized multilinear circuit for $\mathrm{IMM}_d$ must have depth $Ω(\log d/\log \log d).$ Both these bounds are tight up to constant factors. 1. Depth-reduction: A well-known result of Brent (JACM 1974) implies that any formula of size $s$ can be converted to one of size $s^{O(1)}$ and depth $O(\log s)$; further, this reduction continues to hold for multilinear formulas. Our lower bound implies that any depth-reduction in the multilinear setting cannot reduce the depth to $o(\log s)$ without a superpolynomial blow-up in size. 2. Separations from general formulas: Our result, along with a non-trivial upper bound for $\mathrm{IMM}_{d}$ implied by a result of Gupta, Kamath, Kayal and Saptharishi (SICOMP 2016), shows that for any size $s$ and product-depth $Δ= o(\log s),$ general formulas of size $s$ and product-depth $Δ$ cannot be converted to multilinear formulas of size $s^{ω(1)}$ and product-depth $Δ,$ when the underlying field has characteristic zero. △ Less

Submitted 15 October, 2017; originally announced October 2017.

The Chasm at Depth Four, and Tensor Rank : Old results, new insights

Authors: Suryajith Chillara, Mrinal Kumar, Ramprasad Saptharishi, V Vinay

Abstract: Agrawal and Vinay [AV08] showed how any polynomial size arithmetic circuit can be thought of as a depth four arithmetic circuit of subexponential size. The resulting circuit size in this simulation was more carefully analyzed by Korian [Koiran] and subsequently by Tavenas [Tav13]. We provide a simple proof of this chain of results. We then abstract the main ingredient to apply it to formulas and c… ▽ More Agrawal and Vinay [AV08] showed how any polynomial size arithmetic circuit can be thought of as a depth four arithmetic circuit of subexponential size. The resulting circuit size in this simulation was more carefully analyzed by Korian [Koiran] and subsequently by Tavenas [Tav13]. We provide a simple proof of this chain of results. We then abstract the main ingredient to apply it to formulas and constant depth circuits, and show more structured depth reductions for them. In an apriori surprising result, Raz [Raz10] showed that for any $n$ and $d$, such that $ ω(1) \leq d \leq O\left(\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}\right)$, constructing explicit tensors $T:[n]^d \rightarrow F$ of high enough rank would imply superpolynomial lower bounds for arithmetic formulas over the field $F$. Using the additional structure we obtain from our proof of the depth reduction for arithmetic formulas, we give a new and arguably simpler proof of this connection. We also extend this result for homogeneous formulas to show that, in fact, the connection holds for any $d$ such that $ω(1) \leq d \leq n^{o(1)}$. △ Less

Submitted 31 July, 2017; v1 submitted 14 June, 2016; originally announced June 2016.

Comments: Correction - tensor rank is sub-multiplicative. The earlier version incorrectly mentioned that it is multiplicative

On the Limits of Depth Reduction at Depth 3 Over Small Finite Fields

Authors: Suryajith Chillara, Partha Mukhopadhyay

Abstract: Recently, Gupta et.al. [GKKS2013] proved that over Q any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in VP can also be computed by a depth three $ΣΠΣ$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log^{3/2}n)}$. Over fixed-size finite fields, Grigoriev and Karpinski proved that any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit that computes $Det_n$ (or $Perm_n$) must be of size $2^{Ω(n)}$ [GK1998]. In this paper, we prove that over fixed-size… ▽ More Recently, Gupta et.al. [GKKS2013] proved that over Q any $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomial in VP can also be computed by a depth three $ΣΠΣ$ circuit of size $2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log^{3/2}n)}$. Over fixed-size finite fields, Grigoriev and Karpinski proved that any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit that computes $Det_n$ (or $Perm_n$) must be of size $2^{Ω(n)}$ [GK1998]. In this paper, we prove that over fixed-size finite fields, any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit for computing the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial of $n$ generic matrices of size $n\times n$, must be of size $2^{Ω(n\log n)}$. The importance of this result is that over fixed-size fields there is no depth reduction technique that can be used to compute all the $n^{O(1)}$-variate and $n$-degree polynomials in VP by depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n\log n)}$. The result [GK1998] can only rule out such a possibility for depth 3 circuits of size $2^{o(n)}$. We also give an example of an explicit polynomial ($NW_{n,ε}(X)$) in VNP (not known to be in VP), for which any $ΣΠΣ$ circuit computing it (over fixed-size fields) must be of size $2^{Ω(n\log n)}$. The polynomial we consider is constructed from the combinatorial design. An interesting feature of this result is that we get the first examples of two polynomials (one in VP and one in VNP) such that they have provably stronger circuit size lower bounds than Permanent in a reasonably strong model of computation. Next, we prove that any depth 4 $ΣΠ^{[O(\sqrt{n})]}ΣΠ^{[\sqrt{n}]}$ circuit computing $NW_{n,ε}(X)$ (over any field) must be of size $2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$. To the best of our knowledge, the polynomial $NW_{n,ε}(X)$ is the first example of an explicit polynomial in VNP such that it requires $2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)}$ size depth four circuits, but no known matching upper bound. △ Less

Submitted 31 December, 2013; originally announced January 2014.

Depth-4 Lower Bounds, Determinantal Complexity : A Unified Approach

Authors: Suryajith Chillara, Partha Mukhopadhyay

Abstract: Tavenas has recently proved that any n^{O(1)}-variate and degree n polynomial in VP can be computed by a depth-4 circuit of size 2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}. So to prove VP not equal to VNP, it is sufficient to show that an explicit polynomial in VNP of degree n requires 2^{ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} size depth-4 circuits. Soon after Tavenas's result, for two different explicit polynomials, depth-4 circuit size… ▽ More Tavenas has recently proved that any n^{O(1)}-variate and degree n polynomial in VP can be computed by a depth-4 circuit of size 2^{O(\sqrt{n}\log n)}. So to prove VP not equal to VNP, it is sufficient to show that an explicit polynomial in VNP of degree n requires 2^{ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} size depth-4 circuits. Soon after Tavenas's result, for two different explicit polynomials, depth-4 circuit size lower bounds of 2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} have been proved Kayal et al. and Fournier et al. In particular, using combinatorial design Kayal et al.\ construct an explicit polynomial in VNP that requires depth-4 circuits of size 2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} and Fournier et al.\ show that iterated matrix multiplication polynomial (which is in VP) also requires 2^{Ω(\sqrt{n}\log n)} size depth-4 circuits. In this paper, we identify a simple combinatorial property such that any polynomial f that satisfies the property would achieve similar circuit size lower bound for depth-4 circuits. In particular, it does not matter whether f is in VP or in VNP. As a result, we get a very simple unified lower bound analysis for the above mentioned polynomials. Another goal of this paper is to compare between our current knowledge of depth-4 circuit size lower bounds and determinantal complexity lower bounds. We prove the that the determinantal complexity of iterated matrix multiplication polynomial is Ω(dn) where d is the number of matrices and n is the dimension of the matrices. So for d=n, we get that the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial achieves the current best known lower bounds in both fronts: depth-4 circuit size and determinantal complexity. To the best of our knowledge, a Θ(n) bound for the determinantal complexity for the iterated matrix multiplication polynomial was known only for constant d>1 by Jansen. △ Less

Submitted 15 November, 2013; v1 submitted 7 August, 2013; originally announced August 2013.

Comments: Extension of the previous upload