
TL;DR
This paper explores the nuanced role of oracles in computational complexity, providing new lower bounds, separating complexity classes, and analyzing the limits of parallelization in circuit learning algorithms.
Contribution
It introduces a new oracle showing PP has linear-sized circuits, proves PP cannot have small quantum circuits with advice, and analyzes the parallelization limits of NP queries in learning algorithms.
Findings
Constructed an oracle where PP has linear-sized circuits.
Proved PP does not have small quantum circuits with advice.
Showed NP queries in learning algorithms cannot be parallelized relativizingly.
Abstract
Theoretical computer scientists have been debating the role of oracles since the 1970's. This paper illustrates both that oracles can give us nontrivial insights about the barrier problems in circuit complexity, and that they need not prevent us from trying to solve those problems. First, we give an oracle relative to which PP has linear-sized circuits, by proving a new lower bound for perceptrons and low- degree threshold polynomials. This oracle settles a longstanding open question, and generalizes earlier results due to Beigel and to Buhrman, Fortnow, and Thierauf. More importantly, it implies the first nonrelativizing separation of "traditional" complexity classes, as opposed to interactive proof classes such as MIP and MA-EXP. For Vinodchandran showed, by a nonrelativizing argument, that PP does not have circuits of size n^k for any fixed k. We present an alternative proof of…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture · Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs · Machine Learning and Algorithms
