Average Case Lower Bounds for Monotone Switching Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An approximate computation of a Boolean function by a circuit or switching network is a computation in which the function is computed correctly on the majority of the inputs (rather than on all inputs). Besides being interesting in their own right, lower bounds for approximate computation have proved useful in many sub areas of complexity theory, such as cryptography and derandomization. Lower bounds for approximate computation are also known as correlation bounds or average case hardness. In this paper, we obtain the first average case monotone depth lower bounds for a function in monotone P. We tolerate errors that are asymptotically the best possible for monotone circuits. Specifically, we prove average case exponential lower bounds on the size of monotone switching networks for the GEN function. As a corollary, we separate the monotone NC hierarchy in the case of errors -- a result which was previously only known for exact computations. Our proof extends and simplifies the Fourier analytic technique due to Potechin, and further developed by Chan and Potechin. As a corollary of our main lower bound, we prove that the communication complexity approach for monotone depth lower bounds does not naturally generalize to the average case setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".