Skip to main content

On the Size of Depth-Three Boolean Circuits for Computing Multilinear Functions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computational Complexity and Property Testing

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 12050))

  • 615 Accesses

Abstract

This paper introduces and initiates a study of a new model of arithmetic circuits coupled with new complexity measures. The new model consists of multilinear circuits with arbitrary multilinear gates, rather than the standard multilinear circuits that use only addition and multiplication gates. In light of this generalization, the arity of gates becomes of crucial importance and is indeed one of our complexity measures. Our second complexity measure is the number of gates in the circuit, which (in our context) is significantly different from the number of wires in the circuit (which is typically used as a measure of size). Our main complexity measure, denoted \({\mathtt{AN}}(\cdot )\), is the maximum of these two measures (i.e., the maximum between the arity of the gates and the number of gates in the circuit). We also consider the depth of such circuits, focusing on depth-two and unbounded depth.

Our initial motivation for the study of this arithmetic model is the fact that its two main variants (i.e., depth-two and unbounded depth) yield natural classes of depth-three Boolean circuits for computing multilinear functions. The resulting circuits have size that is exponential in the new complexity measure. Hence, lower bounds on the new complexity measure yield size lower bounds on a restricted class of depth-three Boolean circuits (for computing multilinear functions). Such lower bounds are a sanity check for our conjecture that multilinear functions of relatively low degree over \(\mathrm{GF}(2)\) are good candidates for obtaining exponential lower bounds on the size of constant-depth Boolean circuits (computing explicit functions). Specifically, we propose to move gradually from linear functions to multilinear ones, and conjecture that, for any \(t\ge 2\), some explicit t-linear functions \(F:(\{0,1\}^n)^t\rightarrow \{0,1\}\) require depth-three circuits of size \(\exp (\varOmega (tn^{t/(t+1)}))\).

Letting \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}_2}(\cdot )\) denote the complexity measure \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}}(\cdot )\), when minimized over all depth-two circuits of the above type, our main results are as follows.

  • For every t-linear function F, it holds that \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}}(F)\le {{{\mathtt{AN}}}_2}(F)=O((tn)^{t/(t+1)})\).

  • For almost all t-linear function F, it holds that \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}_2}(F)\ge {{{\mathtt{AN}}}}(F)=\varOmega ((tn)^{t/(t+1)})\).

  • There exists a bilinear function F such that \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}}(F)=O({\sqrt{n}})\) but \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}_2}(F)=\varOmega (n^{2/3})\).

The main open problem posed in this paper is proving that \({{{\mathtt{AN}}}_2}(F)\ge {{{\mathtt{AN}}}}(F)=\varOmega ((tn)^{t/(t+1)})\) holds for an explicit t-linear function F, with \(t\ge 2\). For starters, we seek lower bound of \(\varOmega ((tn)^{0.51})\) for an explicit t-linear function F, preferably for constant t. We outline an approach that reduces this challenge (for \(t=3\)) to a question regarding matrix rigidity.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The relevance of the Karchmer and Wigderson approach [17] to constant-depth circuits is stated explicitly in [18, Sec. 10.5].

  2. 2.

    Note that \({F_\mathtt{all}^{t,n}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t)}}) = \prod _{j\in [t]}\sum _{i_j\in [n]}{x^{(j)}_{i_{j}}}\), which means that it can be computed by a t-way conjunction of n-way parity circuits, whereas \({F_\mathtt{diag}^{t,n}}\) is obviously an n-way parity of t-way conjunctions of variables.

  3. 3.

    Thus, these tensors should be constructible within \(\exp (tn)\)-time. Note that we can move from the tensor to the multilinear function (and vice versa) in \(n^t\ll \exp (tn)\) oracle calls.

  4. 4.

    Note that \({F_\mathtt{leq}^{t,n}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t)}})\) equals \(\sum _{i\in [n]}{F_\mathtt{leq}^{t-1,i}}(x^{(1)}_{[1,i]},...,x^{(t-1)}_{[1,i]}) \cdot x^{(t)}_i\), where \(x^{(j)}_{[1,i]}=(x^{(j)}_{1},...,x^{(j)}_{i})\). So, for every \(t'\in [t-1]\), the dynamic program uses the n values \(({F_\mathtt{leq}^{t',i}}(x^{(1)}_{[1,i]},...,x^{(t')}_{[1,i]}))_{i\in [n]}\) in order to compute the n values \(({F_\mathtt{leq}^{t'+1,i}}(x^{(1)}_{[1,i]},...,x^{(t'+1)}_{[1,i]}))_{i\in [n]}\).

  5. 5.

    Again, we use dynamic programming, but here we apply it to generalizations of these functions. Specifically, let \({T_\mathtt{tet}^{t,n,d}}=\{(i_1,...,i_t)\in [n]^t:\sum _{j\in [n]}|i_j-{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }|\le d\}\) and note that the associated function satisfies \({F_\mathtt{tet}^{t,n,d}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t)}}) = \sum _{i\in [n]} {F_\mathtt{tet}^{t-1,n,d-i}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t-1)}})\cdot x^{(t)}_i\). Likewise, consider the tensor \({T_{\mathrm{mod}\, {p}}^{t,n,r}} = \left\{ (i_1,...,i_t)\in [n]^t:\sum _{j\in [t]}i_j\equiv r\pmod p\right\} \) and note that the associated function satisfies \({F_{\mathrm{mod}\, {p}}^{t,n,r}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t)}}) = \sum _{i\in [n]} {F_{\mathrm{mod}\, {p}}^{t-1,n,r-i}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t-1)}})\cdot x^{(t)}_i\).

  6. 6.

    In brief, when computing t-linear polynomials, a lower bound of \(\exp (\varOmega (s/2^t))\) on the size of depth-two circuits can be justified (see [11, Apdx C]). Furthermore, for \(2^t\ll s\), a lower bound of \(\exp (\varOmega (s))\) can be justified if the CNFs (or DNFs) used are “canonical” (i.e., use only s-way gates at the second (i.e., \(F_i\)’s) level).

  7. 7.

    Since such directly fed variables can be replaced by dummy gates that are each fed by the corresponding variable.

  8. 8.

    Doing so may increase the arity of the top gate, but this increase is upper-bounded by the number of gates. A more general argument is presented in Remark 2.4, which asserts that if gate G computes a monomial that contains no leaves, then this monomial can be moved up to the parent of G.

  9. 9.

    Thus, \(n=4\) and t is the number of matrices being multiplied.

  10. 10.

    Concretely, the conjectured hardness of computing a multilinear function by constant-depth Boolean circuits may stem from the number (denoted n) of variables of the same type (i.e., the variables in \({x^{(j)}}\)), even when the arity of multiplication (denoted t) is relatively small (e.g., we even consider bilinear functions), whereas in the multilinear circuits hardness seem to be related to t (cf., indeed, the aforementioned lower bound for iterated matrix multiplication).

  11. 11.

    See ECCC TR13-043, March 2013.

  12. 12.

    However, as stated in Sect. 1.5, our main results extend to other fields.

  13. 13.

    In fact, \({\mathtt{AN}}_2({F_\mathtt{had}^{2,n}})={\widetilde{O}}({\sqrt{n}})\). In contrast, by [9], \({\mathtt{AN}}_2({F_\mathtt{tet}^{3,n}})={\widetilde{\varOmega }}(n^{2/3})\) and \({\mathtt{AN}}({F_\mathtt{tet}^{3,n}})={\widetilde{\varOmega }}(n^{0.6})\).

  14. 14.

    Clearly, w.l.o.g., H is multilinear in its m inputs, since we are considering multiplication over \(\mathrm{GF}(2)\). However, what we consider next is not the dependency of H on its own inputs, but rather its dependency on the inputs of the circuits as reflected in the composed function \(H(F_1,...,F_m)\). Furthermore, we do not consider this function per se, but rather its syntactic form (before cancellations).

  15. 15.

    Actually, this may increase m by one unit. The reason is that if the top gate if fed by i variables, then the number of intermediate gates in the circuit is at most \(m-i\). So introducing intermediate singleton gates yields a depth-two circuit with at most \((m-i)+i\) intermediate gates.

  16. 16.

    The point is that this alternative class G does not refer to the “description length” but rather to the complexity measures defined in this section. In this case, we may show that a random restriction of the type used in the original proof leaves m/s live variables in each \(G_i\), in expectation, just as it holds for the \(B_i\)’s. Using \(m=0.9n^{2/3}\), it holds that, with high probability, none of the gates exceeds this expectation by a factor of 1/0.9. Next, we upper-bound the size of G, very much as done in the foregoing proof, where here the crucial fact is that each \(B_i\) has only \(m\cdot n^{1/6}\) live terms, whereas \(m^2\cdot n^{1/6} = 0.81\cdot n^{3/2}\).

  17. 17.

    Here, we assume (as is standard in the area) that the cancellations must hold over any extension field of \(\mathrm{GF}(2)\) (rather than only over \(\mathrm{GF}(2)\) itself); that is, the polynomial \(x^i\) may be cancelled by the polynomial \((2k+1)\cdot x^j\) if and only if \(i=j\).

  18. 18.

    Variables that feed directly into the top gate can be replaced by 1-ary identity gates.

  19. 19.

    Depth-two circuits can be derived by combining the t-way multiplication gate with the \(\sqrt{n}\)-way addition gates feeding it (resp., each \(\sqrt{n}\)-way addition gate with the t-way multiplication gate feeding it).

  20. 20.

    By the induction hypothesis, for every \(t'\in [t-1]\), we can express the functions \({F_\mathtt{leq}^{t-t',[(k-1)s+1,n]}}({x^{(1)}},...,{x^{(t-t')}})\) for all \(k\in [s]\), but here we need the functions \({F_\mathtt{leq}^{t-t',[(k-1)s+1,n]}}({x^{(t'+1)}},...,{x^{(t)}})\). Still, these are the same functions, we just need to change the variable names in the expressions.

  21. 21.

    For starters, we allowed each gate to be feed by m original variables and m auxiliary functions, whereas the arity bound is m. Furthermore, we allowed each gate to be fed by all other gates, whereas the circuit should be acyclic. Moreover, the choice of the t-partition can be the same for all gates, let alone that the various t-partitions must be consistent among gates and adheres to the multilinearity condition of Definition 2.1.

  22. 22.

    Denoting by \(m_j\) the number of variables and/or gates that belong to the \(j^\mathrm{th}\) block, the number of possible monomials is \(\prod _{j\in [t]}(m_j+1)\), where in our case \(\sum _{j\in [t]}m_j\le 2m\).

  23. 23.

    Added in Revision: Interestingly, a subsequent work of Dvir and Liu [3, 4] shows that no Toeplitz matrix is rigid in the range of parameters sought by Valiant [31]. Specifically, they show that, for any constant \(c>1\), no Toeplitz matrix has rigidity \(n^c\) with respect to rank \(n/\log n\) (see [4], which builds upon [3]). In contrast, the subsequent work of Goldreich and Tal [9] shows that almost all Toeplitz matrix have rigidity \({\widetilde{\varOmega }}(n^3/r^2)\) with respect to rank \(r\in [{\sqrt{n}},n/32]\).

  24. 24.

    As in Construction 2.6, we may replace variables that feed directly into the top gate by 1-ary identity gates. That is, if \(F(x,y)=H(F_1(x,y),...,F_{m'}(x,y),z_{m'+1}...,z_{m-1})\), where each \(z_i\) belongs either to x or to y, then we let \(F(x,y)=H(F_1(x,y),...,F_{m-1}(x,y))\), where \(F_i(x,y)=z_i\) for every \(i\in [m'+1,m-1]\).

  25. 25.

    In terms of Eq. (1), letting T denote the set of one-entries of M, it holds that \(B(x,y)=\sum _{(k,\ell )\in T}x_ky_\ell \).

  26. 26.

    That is, letting \(L'_j(y)=\sum _{j_2:(j,j_2)\in P}L_{j_2}(y)\), we consider the sum \(\sum _{j_1\in [m-1]}L_{j_1}(x)\cdot L'_{j_1}(y)\), and note that each term corresponds to a rank-1 matrix (i.e., the \((k,\ell )^\mathrm{th}\) entry of the \(j_1^\mathrm{th}\) matrix equals \(L_{j_1}(0^{k-1}10^{n-k})\cdot L'_{j_1}(0^{\ell -1}10^{n-\ell })\)).

  27. 27.

    Actually, we can combine all products that involve \(F_i\), see below.

  28. 28.

    Since, as argued next, such monomials exist only in the top gate, it follows that (w.l.o.g.) they cannot be a single linear function, because the top gate must compute a homogeneous polynomial of degree 2.

  29. 29.

    Note that \(\sigma _1+\sigma _2 = \sum _k F_k(x)\cdot L_k(y) +\sum _\ell L_\ell (x)\cdot F_\ell (y)\), where the \(L_i\)’s are arbitrary linear functions (which may depend on an arbitrary number of variables in either x or y).

  30. 30.

    This generalizes the claim made in Remark 3.5. Furthermore, as stated there, mixed gates are potentially beneficial. The observation made here is that this benefit (i.e., a mixed monomial) comes at the “cost” of using auxiliary functions of lower degree.

  31. 31.

    The opposite direction is equally simple: Just note that \({F_\mathtt{tet}^{3,n}}\) can be expressed as a sum of the values in the eight directions corresponding to \(\{\pm 1\}^3\).

  32. 32.

    Equivalently, we wish to set I such that \(|\{i\in I:\chi (i,j,k)=1\}|\equiv h_{0,j+k}\pmod 2\) holds, where \(\chi (i,j,k)=1\) if \((i,j,k)\in T_3\) (equiv., \(i+j+k\le n'\)). Letting \(\zeta _i\in \mathrm{GF}(2)\) represent whether \(i\in I\), we solve the linear system \(\sum _{i\in [[n']]} \chi (i,0,j+k)\zeta _i \equiv h_{0,j+k}\pmod 2\) for \(j+k\in [[n']]\). Note that the matrix corresponding to this linear system has full rank.

  33. 33.

    This means that one considers the syntactic polynomial computed by the circuit (over a generic field) and requires that it equals the target polynomial when the field remains unspecified.

  34. 34.

    Recall that, w.l.o.g., gates that compute quadratic \(F_i\)’s (for \(i\in [m']\)) may only feed into the top gate. Ditto for gates computing products of two linear \(F_i\)’s (for \(i\in [m'+1,m-1]\)). Thus, \(F_0=Q_0+\sum _{i\in [m']}F_i+\sum _{i=m'+1}^{m-1}L_{0,i}F_i\), where \(Q_0\) is a sum of the products of pairs of variables that appear in \(F_0\), the \(L_{0,i}\)’s are arbitrary linear functions, and for \(i>m'\) the linear function \(F_i\) is computed by an internal gate. Furthermore, for every \(i\in [m']\), it holds that \(F_i=Q_i+\sum _{j=m'+1}^{m-1}L_{i,j}F_j\), where \(Q_i\) is a sum of the products of pairs of variables that appear in \(F_i\), the \(L_{i,j}\)’s are arbitrary linear functions, and for \(j>m'\) the linear function \(F_j\) is computed by an internal gate. Letting \(L_j=\sum _{i=0}^{m'}L_{i,j}\), we get Eq. (12).

  35. 35.

    Recall that, w.l.o.g., gates that compute cubic \(F_i\)’s (for \(i\in [m']\)) may only feed into the top gate. Ditto for gates computing products of linear \(F_i\)’s and quadratic \(F_i\)’s (for \(i\in [m'+1,m-1]\)). Thus, \(F_0=C_0+\sum _{i\in [m']}F_i +\sum _{i=m'+1}^{m'+m''}L_{0,i}F_{i} +\sum _{i=m'+m''+1}^{m'+m''+m''}Q_{0,i}F_{i}\), where \(C_0\) is a sum of the products of triples of variables that appear in \(F_0\), the \(L_{0,i}\)’s (resp., \(Q_{0,i}\)’s) are arbitrary linear (resp., quadratic) functions, and for \(i>m'\) the quadratic (resp., linear) function \(F_i\) is computed by an internal gate. Furthermore, for every \(i\in [m']\), it holds that \(F_i=C_i+\sum _{j=m'+1}^{m'+m''}L_{i,j}F_{j} +\sum _{j=m'+m''+1}^{m'+m''+m''}Q_{i,j}F_{j}\), where \(C_i\) is a sum of the products of triples of variables that appear in \(F_i\), the \(L_{i,j}\)’s (resp., \(Q_{i,j}\)’s) are arbitrary linear (resp., quadratic) functions, and for \(j>m'\) the quadratic (resp., linear) function \(F_j\) is computed by an internal gate. Letting \(L_j=\sum _{i=0}^{m'}L_{i,j}\) and \(Q_j=\sum _{i=0}^{m'}Q_{i,j}\), we get Eq. (13).

  36. 36.

    In a gate that is fed by a trivial multiplication-gate, the argument representing the trivial gate’s output is replaced by the (up to) t input variables feeding this trivial gate.

References

  1. Ajtai, M.: \(\varSigma _1^1\)-formulae on finite structures. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 24(1), 1–48 (1983)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Babai, L.: Random oracles separate PSPACE from the polynomial-time hierarchy. IPL 26, 51–53 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Dvir, Z., Liu, A.: Fourier and circulant matrices are not rigid. In: 34th CCC, pp. 17:1–17:23 (2019). arXiv:1902.07334 [math.CO]

  4. Dvir, Z., Liu, A.: Fourier and circulant matrices are not rigid. To appear in TOC, special issue of 34th CCC. See also ECCC, TR19-129, September 2019

    Google Scholar 

  5. Erdos, P., Spencer, J.: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics. Academic Press Inc., New York (1974)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Furst, M.L., Saxe, J.B., Sipser, M.: Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Syst. Theory 17(1), 13–27 (1984). Preliminary version in 22nd FOCS (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldreich, O.: Computational Complexity: A Conceptual Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldreich, O.: Improved bounds on the AN-complexity of multilinear functions. In: ECCC, TR19-171 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goldreich, O., Tal, A.: Matrix rigidity of random Toeplitz matrices. Comput. Complex. 27(2), 305–350 (2018). Preliminary versions in 48th STOC (2016) and ECCC TR15-079 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldreich, O., Tal, A.: On constant-depth canonical Boolean circuits for computing multilinear functions. In: ECCC, TR17-193 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goldreich, O., Wigderson, A.: On the size of depth-three Boolean circuits for computing multilinear functions. In: ECCC, TR13-043 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hastad, J.: Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In: Micali, S. (ed.) Advances in Computing Research: A Research Annual, (Randomness and Computation), vol. 5, pp. 143–170 (1989). Extended abstract in 18th STOC (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hastad, J.: Computational Limitations for Small Depth Circuits. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hastad, J., Jukna, S., Pudlak, P.: Top-down lower bounds for depth-three circuits. Comput. Complex. 5(2), 99–112 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Hrubes, P., Rao, A.: Circuits with medium fan-in. In: ECCC, TR14-020 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jukna, S.: Boolean Function Complexity: Advances and Frontiers. Algorithms and Combinatorics, vol. 27. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24508-4

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Kushilevitz, E., Nisan, N.: Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Lokam, S.V.: Complexity lower bounds using linear algebra. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 4, 1–155 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. van Melkebeek, D.: A survey of lower bounds for satisfiability and related problems. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 2, 197–303 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Nisan, N.: Pseudorandom bits for constant depth circuits. Combinatorica 11(1), 63–70 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: Hardness vs randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49(2), 149–167 (1994). Preliminary version in 29th FOCS (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: Lower bound on arithmetic circuits via partial derivatives. Comput. Complex. 6, 217–234 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Raz, R.: Tensor-rank and lower bounds for arithmetic formulas. In: Proceeding of the 42nd STOC, pp. 659–666 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Raz, R., Yehudayoff, A.: Lower bounds and separations for constant depth multilinear circuits. In: ECCC, TR08-006 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Razborov, A.: Lower bounds on the size of bounded-depth networks over a complete basis with logical addition. Matematicheskie Zametki 41(4), 598–607 (1987). (in Russian). English translation in Math. Notes Acad. Sci. USSR 41(4), 333–338 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Savitch, W.J.: Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. JCSS 4(2), 177–192 (1970)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Shaltiel, R., Viola, E.: Hardness amplification proofs require majority. SIAM J. Comput. 39(7), 3122–3154 (2010). Extended abstract in 40th STOC (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Smolensky, R.: Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity. In: 19th STOC, pp. 77–82 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Strassen, V.: Vermeidung von Divisionen. J. Reine Angew. Math. 264, 182–202 (1973)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Valiant, L.G.: Graph-theoretic arguments in low-level complexity. In: Gruska, J. (ed.) MFCS 1977. LNCS, vol. 53, pp. 162–176. Springer, Heidelberg (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-08353-7_135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Valiant, L.G.: Exponential lower bounds for restricted monotone circuits. In: 15th STOC, pp. 110–117 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vazirani, U.V.: Efficiency considerations in using semi-random sources. In: 19th STOC, pp. 160–168 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yao, A.C.: Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles. In: 26th FOCS, pp. 1–10 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Or Meir for extremely helpful discussions, and to Avishay Tal for many suggestions for improving the presentation. Research was partially done while O.G. visited the IAS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Oded Goldreich or Avi Wigderson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Goldreich, O., Wigderson, A. (2020). On the Size of Depth-Three Boolean Circuits for Computing Multilinear Functions. In: Goldreich, O. (eds) Computational Complexity and Property Testing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12050. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43662-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43662-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43661-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43662-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics