Skip to main content

On the Mystery of Negations in Circuits: Structure vs Power

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 12273))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 754 Accesses

Abstract

Exploring further the power of negations in Boolean circuits, in this paper we study the effect of interdependency of negation gates in circuits in terms of computational power. As a starting point, we study the power of independent negations (where no negation feeds into another, even via other gates) in circuits and show the following results.

  • The minimum number of independent negations required to compute a Boolean function is exactly characterized by the decrease of the function. We also provide an additional characterization by a generalization of orientation [9], which we call the monotone orientation.

  • We define a new measure called the thickness of a Boolean function, and show that if f has thickness at most t and has a circuit of depth d, then f can be computed using \(2^{\lceil \log (t+1)\rceil }\) (independent) negations in depth \(d+O(\log n)\). When the function is monotone, we also show a parameterized version of this result, where the depth is expressed in terms of thickness and d. Our techniques include a natural generalization of the Karchmer-Widgerson games to include a switch step.

  • For functions with thickness t, we show that the monotone and non-monotone circuit depths are related by the factor of thickness and an extra \(O(\log n)\) additive factor. This generalizes the fact [16] that for slice functions, the monotone and non-monotone circuit depth complexities are related by an additive factor of \(O(\log n)\).

To go further, we study the dependency between negations in the circuit by modeling the same using a negation graph with negation gates (and root) as vertices and directed edges representing pair of negation gates which feed into each other through a path which does not have negations. We associate a measure of decrease capacity with the negation graph, denoted \(\mathsf{d_{\max }}\). We show the following results:

  • For a negation graph N, \(\mathsf{d_{\max }}(N)\) is the maximum decrease of any circuit which has this negation graph. Using this as a tool, we derive necessary conditions on the structure of negation graphs when the circuit is negation optimal.

  • We show how to construct circuits for a function f, given a negation tree with decrease capacity at least \(\frac{\mathsf {alt}(f)}{2}\). En route this result, we show that if f and g are two Boolean functions on n variables with \(\mathsf {alt}(f) \le \mathsf {alt}(g)\) and \(f(0^n)=g(0^n)\), then any circuit for g can be used (with substitution of variables with monotone functions) to compute f without using any extra negation. This may be of independent interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The actual bound in [10] is stated in terms of the measure of non-monotonicity of a function called decrease (which we denote by \(\mathsf{dec}(f)\)) - see Sect. 2 for definition).

  2. 2.

    Informally, this is the number of negations that any De-Morgan circuits requires, to compute the function.

  3. 3.

    When the circuit is viewed as a graph, the negation gates represent an independent set.

  4. 4.

    Not even through a series of gates.

  5. 5.

    Alice and Bob must both know that they are performing the operation. This can be inferred from the communication or can be indicated by one player by communicating with the other.

  6. 6.

    If the root gate is a negation gate, add a dummy gate as a root gate.

References

  1. Alon, N., Boppana, R.B.: The monotone circuit complexity of Boolean functions. Combinatorica 7(1), 1–22 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Amano, K., Maruoka, A.: A superpolynomial lower bound for a circuit computing the clique function with at most (1/6)log log n negation gates. SIAM J. Comput. 35(1), 201–216 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Nechiporuk, E.I.: On the complexity of schemes in some bases containing non-trivial elements with zero weights. Problemy Kibernetiki 8, 123–160 (1962)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Fischer, M.J.: The complexity of negation-limited networks—a brief survey. In: Brakhage, H. (ed.) GI-Fachtagung 1975. LNCS, vol. 33, pp. 71–82. Springer, Heidelberg (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-07407-4_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Jukna, S.: On the minimum number of negations leading to super-polynomial savings. Inf. Process. Lett. 89(2), 71–74 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Jukna, S.: Boolean Function Complexity. Advances and Frontiers. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24508-4

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Jukna, S., Lingas, A.: Lower bounds for demorgan circuits of bounded negation width. In: STACS (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Karchmer, M., Wigderson, A.: Monotone circuits for connectivity require super-logarithmic depth. SIAM J. Discret. Math. 3(2), 255–265 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Koroth, S., Sarma, J.: Depth lower bounds against circuits with sparse orientation. Fundam. Inf. 152(2), 123–144 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Markov, A.A.: On the inversion complexity of a system of functions. J. ACM 5(4), 331–334 (1958)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Morizumi, H.: Limiting negations in formulas. In: Albers, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Matias, Y., Nikoletseas, S., Thomas, W. (eds.) ICALP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5555, pp. 701–712. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02927-1_58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Raz, R., Wigderson, A.: Monotone circuits for matching require linear depth. J. ACM 39(3), 736–744 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds for monotone complexity of some Boolean functions. Sov. Math. Doklady. 31, 354–357 (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Rossman, B.: Correlation bounds against monotone NC\(^1\). In: Zuckerman, D. (ed.) 30th Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2015. LIPICS, vol. 33, pp. 392–411 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Santha, M., Wilson, C.: Limiting negations in constant depth circuits. SIAM J. Comput. 22(2), 294–302 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Wegener, I.: On the complexity of slice functions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 38, 55–68 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayalal Sarma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Amireddy, P., Jayasurya, S., Sarma, J. (2020). On the Mystery of Negations in Circuits: Structure vs Power. In: Kim, D., Uma, R., Cai, Z., Lee, D. (eds) Computing and Combinatorics. COCOON 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12273. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58150-3_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58150-3_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58149-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58150-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics