Circuit complexity and functionality: a thermodynamic perspective

Circuit complexity, defined as the minimum circuit size required for implementing a particular Boolean computation, is a foundational concept in computer science. Determining circuit complexity is believed to be itself a hard problem [1]. Furthermore, placing general lower bounds on circuit complexity would allow distinguishing computational classes, such as P and NP, an unsolved problem [2]. Recently, in the context of black holes, circuit complexity has been promoted to a physical property, wherein the growth of complexity is reflected in the time evolution of the Einstein-Rosen bridge (“wormhole”) connecting the two sides of an AdS “eternal” black hole [3]. Here we explore another link between complexity and physics for circuits of given functionality. Taking advantage of the connection between circuit counting problems and the derivation of ensembles in statistical mechanics, we tie the entropy of circuits of a given functionality and fixed number of gates to circuit complexity. We use thermodynamic relations to connect the quantity analogous to the equilibrium temperature to the exponent describing the exponential growth of the number of distinct functionalities as a function of complexity. This connection is intimately related to the finite compressibility of typical circuits. Finally, we use the thermodynamic approach to formulate a framework for the obfuscation of programs of arbitrary length – an important problem in cryptography – as thermalization through recursive mixing of neighboring sections of a circuit, which can viewed as the mixing of two containers with “gases of gates”. This recursive process equilibrates the average complexity and leads to the saturation of the circuit entropy, while preserving functionality of the overall circuit. The thermodynamic arguments hinge on ergodicity in the space of circuits which we conjecture is limited to disconnected ergodic sectors due to fragmentation. The notion of fragmentation has important implications for the problem of circuit obfuscation as it implies that there are circuits with same size and functionality that cannot be connected via local moves. Furthermore, we argue that fragmentation is unavoidable unless the complexity classes NP and coNP coincide, a statement that implies the collapse of the polynomial hierarchy of complexity theory to its first level.

Introduction

During the past decade a novel connection between physics and computer science has emerged in the course of explorations of one of the most fundamental open problems in physics, namely, the development of a theory of quantum gravity that reconciles and unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics. In this context, a bold proposal was made and developed by Susskind and collaborators [3, 4, 5] whereby the formal computer science notion of complexity has acquired specific physical reality, as it is conjectured that the growth of computational complexity represents the growth of the Einstein-Rosen bridge (the “wormhole”) of an AdS “eternal” black hole. It is argued that this growth is linear in time and persists for a time scale that is exponential in the physical black hole entropy. One way to formalize this connection is to use heuristic models of black hole dynamics based on quantum circuits of $2$-qubit gates [6], in which case one (i) defines “computational complexity” as the minimum number of elementary gates needed to implement a particular unitary operator; and (ii) introduces an intuitive notion of “circuit entropy”, determined from the logarithm of the number of possible circuits of a given complexity. Unlike the physical entropy, which saturates to a value linear in the number of qubits, $n$, the circuit entropy, just as the circuit complexity, grows to its saturation value of $O(4^{n})$. More precisely, Refs. [3, 4, 5] argue that computational complexity is connected with the entropy of an auxiliary ensemble of $2^{n}$ classical particles moving on a negatively curved two-dimensional surface of large genus. In analogy with the second law of thermodynamics in physical systems, this connection leads to the natural description of the growth tendency of computational complexity as “the second law of complexity” [5]. It is important to note that in deriving the linear growth of complexity with number of gates, Refs. [4, 5] ignore the role of “circuit collisions”, defined as different sequences of gates that lead to the same unitary, i.e., circuits of the same “functionality.”

By contrast, here we focus on the development of a thermodynamic approach that takes into account both complexity and functionality. Ultimately it is the specific computation implemented by a given circuit that is the central object of interested in most computational problems. Our framework is based on reversible computing, which can be implemented either as permutations $P$ acting on the space of $2^{n}$ strings of $n$ bits, or as unitary transformations $U$ acting on the $d^{n}$ dimensional Hilbert space of $n$ qudits with local Hilbert space dimension $d$. Below, we focus on the permutations because the counting is discrete (and thus simpler), but the results carry over to unitaries with minor modifications. We will establish that there are exponentially many ways to express a given functionality – a permutation $P$ – in terms of reversible gates. Our framework of circuit thermodynamics allows us to connect the scaling of two seemingly unrelated counting problems: (a) how many ${\cal N}$-gate circuits can one write for a given functionality, and (b) how many distinct functionalities are there for circuits with given complexity ${\cal K}$. The connection between these quantities is tied to finite compressibility of typical circuits, e.g., those with gates drawn randomly from a given gate set. This finite compressibility highlights the importance of circuit collisions and also implies a linear growth of complexity with number of gates (up to its maximum value exponential in $n$) with a slope that is less than unity. As an application of the framework, keeping track of functionality allows us to formulate a thermodynamic approach to the problem of circuit obfuscation, i.e., a form of program encryption that hides one among many circuit implementations of a given functionality.

Below we also introduce the notion of ergodicity in the space of circuits of equal size and functionality, which is implied by the assumption of the uniform covering of the space of circuits assumed in formulating our thermodynamic approach. The discussion of ergodicity requires defining a dynamics in the space of circuits which enables transforming two circuits into one another while preserving size and functionality. We define a set of dynamical rules that we refer to as “$k$-local” dynamics according to which one replaces $k$-gate subcircuits by equivalent subcircuits of equal size. This dynamical rule conserves both the functionality and size of the original circuit. We argue that, generically, such models lead to fragmentation of the space of circuits into disconnected sectors. Thus, ergodicity holds and the thermodynamic framework only applies within each sector. This conclusion raises interesting questions about circuit obfuscation that are connected with fundamental assumptions of complexity theory in computer science.

Results

Counting circuits, entropy inequalities, and the thermodynamics of circuit complexity: As noted above, there are multiple ways of writing the same permutation $P$ using reversible gates; the number of ways depends on the gate set $G$ used. We define the circuit entropy

$${\cal S}(P,{\cal N})=\log_{2}\Omega(P,{\cal N})\;,$$ (1)

where $\Omega(P,{\cal N})$ is the number of circuits realizing permutation $P$ with exactly ${\cal N}$ gates. This definition immediately implies the sum-rule $\sum_{P}\;\Omega(P,{\cal N})=|G|^{\cal N}$, where $|G|$ denotes the cardinality of the gate set used in the implementation of $P$.

The above counting parallels that used in the formulation of the microcanonical ensemble in statistical mechanics. In this setting, both ${\cal N}$ and the circuit functionality, i.e., the permutation $P$ implemented by the circuit, are “conserved quantities”. Furthermore, we assume that all circuits implementing $P$ with ${\cal N}$ gates appear with equal weight in the counting, a condition equivalent to the equal probability of microstates in the microcanonical ensemble.

A number of inequalities follow from the definition of the circuit entropy in Eq. (1). The simplest one,

$${\cal S}(P_{1},{\cal N}_{1})+{\cal S}(P_{2},{\cal N}_{2})\leq{\cal S}(P_{1}P_{2},{\cal N}_{1}+{\cal N}_{2})\;,$$ (2)

expresses the fact that there may be more ways of implementing the product $P_{1}P_{2}$ than simply sequentially implementing $P_{1}$ and then $P_{2}$. Using this inequality, we can immediately derive a lower bound on the entropy ${\cal S}(P,{\cal N})$ in terms of the circuit complexity ${\cal K}(P)$ of the permutation $P$:

$${\cal S}(P,{\cal K}(P))+{\cal S}({1\!\!1},{\cal N}-{\cal K}(P))\leq{\cal S}(P,{\cal N})\;,$$ (3)

where ${1\!\!1}$ denotes the identity permutation, which has zero complexity, i.e., it can be expressed without using any gate. The bound Eq. (3) connects the microcanonical ensemble entropy to the circuit complexity, and provide the foundation to what we refer to as the thermodynamics of circuit complexity. (In analogy to statistical physics, by introducing weights for different gates one could have also constructed a canonical ensemble for circuits.) The two terms on the left hand side represent two types of contributions to the circuit entropy: the first accounts for the number of different ways of writing $P$ within the minimum possible size ${\cal K}(P)$, and is independent of ${\cal N}$; the second term depends on the “free volume” ${\cal N}-{\cal K}(P)$, with the complexity ${\cal K}(P)$ acting as an “excluded volume”. The ${\cal S}({1\!\!1},{\cal N}-{\cal K}(P))$ contribution depends on $P$ only through its complexity. We posit that (i) up to subextensive corrections, ${\cal S}(P,{\cal K}(P))$ depends on $P$ only through its complexity ${\cal K}(P)$; and that (ii) the entropy ${\cal S}(P,{\cal N})$ also only depends on ${\cal N}$ and the complexity ${\cal K}(P)$, namely,

$${\cal S}(P,{\cal N})\approx\bar{\cal S}({\cal K}(P),{\cal N})\;.$$ (4)

Note that, in parallel with the entropy inequality in Eq. (2), the circuit complexity satisfies the opposite inequality,

$${\cal K}(P_{1})+{\cal K}(P_{2})\geq{\cal K}(P_{1}P_{2})\;,$$ (5)

which reflects the obvious fact that there may be shorter circuits implementing $P_{1}P_{2}$ than the concatenation of $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$.

To exploit the implications of the above counting argument we introduce another entropy function $\sigma({\cal K},{\cal N})=\log_{2}\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})$. By contrast to $\Omega({\cal K}(P),{\cal N})$, which counts the number of ${\cal N}$-gate circuits of fixed functionality with complexity ${\cal K}$, $\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})$ counts all ${\cal N}$-gate circuits of fixed complexity, ${\cal K}$:

$$\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})=\sum_{P}\delta_{{\cal K},{\cal K}(P)}\;2^{{\cal S}(P,{\cal N})}\approx\sum_{P}\delta_{{\cal K},{\cal K}(P)}\;2^{\bar{\cal S}({\cal K}(P),{\cal N})}=\nu({\cal K})\;2^{\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})}\;,$$ (6)

leading to

$$\sigma({\cal K},{\cal N}) \approx\log_{2}\nu({\cal K})+\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})\$$ (7a)

$$\approx\alpha{\cal K}+\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})\ \;,$$ (7b)

where $\nu({\cal K})=\sum_{P}\delta_{{\cal K},{\cal K}(P)}$ is a “density of states” that counts the number of possible functionalities (i.e., permutations) implemented by circuits of a fixed complexity, ${\cal K}$. In writing Eq. (7b) we assumed the extensitivity of both sides of Eq. (7a) which implies that $\log_{2}\nu({\cal K})=\alpha{\cal K}$. The function $\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})=2^{\sigma({\cal K},{\cal N})}$ defines, for circuits of ${\cal N}$ gates, the circuit complexity weight distribution, which peaks at the extremum of the function $\sigma({\cal K},{\cal N})$:

$$\frac{\partial{\sigma({\cal K},{\cal N})}}{\partial{\cal K}}{\biggr{\rvert}}_{{\cal N}}=0=\alpha+\frac{\partial\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})}{\partial{\cal K}}{\biggr{\rvert}}_{{\cal N}}\;.$$ (8)

Since the entropy decreases with complexity, we write ${\partial\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})}/{\partial{\cal K}}|_{{\cal N}}=-\beta(\kappa)$ where $\beta(\kappa)$ is a positive function of $\kappa={\cal K}/{\cal N}$. At the extremum $\kappa=\kappa^{*}$, $\alpha=\beta(\kappa^{*})=\beta$, and Eq. (7b) assumes the form,

$$\sigma({\cal K}^{*},{\cal N})=\beta\;{\cal K}^{*}+\bar{\cal S}({\cal K}^{*},{\cal N})\ \;.$$ (9)

It is gratifying that Eq. (9) can be recast in a form familiar from the thermodynamics of physical systems: if we interpret ${\cal K}$ as the negative of the energy, $\mathcal{E}=-{\cal K}$ (or equivalently, $\epsilon=\mathcal{E}/{\cal N}=-\kappa$) and $\beta=1/{T}$ as the inverse of the temperature $T$, Eq. (9) can be rewritten in terms of the equilibrium free energy $F(T,{\cal N})$,

$$-{T}\;{\sigma_{e}}(\mathcal{E},{\cal N})\equiv F({T},{\cal N})=\mathcal{E}-{T}\;{{\bar{\cal S}}_{e}}(\mathcal{E},{\cal N})\;,\;,$$ (10)

where subscripts $e$ represent the respective $\sigma$ and $\bar{\cal S}$ functions evaluated at the corresponding negative energies. Within this correspondence, the smallest (large negative) energy state - corresponding to high complexity - would represent a low entropy crystal while the largest (zero) energy state - corresponding to low complexity - would represent a high entropy gas.

The direct analogy with statistical mechanics can be exploited further in the calculation of the probability distribution of complexities for ${\cal N}$-gate circuits:

$$P_{{\cal N}}({\cal K})=\frac{\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})}{\sum_{{\cal K}=0}^{{\cal N}}\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})}\;,$$ (11)

where the form of $\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})$ can be obtained by expanding $\sigma({\cal K},{\cal N})=\log_{2}\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})=\alpha{\cal K}+\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})$ in Eq. (7b) to second order in $\Delta{\cal K}=({\cal K}-{\cal K}^{*})$, the departure from the solution of the extremum condition, $\beta(\kappa^{*})=\alpha$:

$$\log_{2}\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})=\bar{\cal S}({\cal K}^{*},{\cal N})+\alpha{\cal K}^{*}+\frac{1}{2}\;{\Delta{\cal K}}^{2}\;\frac{\partial^{2}\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})}{\partial{\cal K}^{2}}{\biggr{\rvert}}_{{\cal N},{\cal K}={\cal K}^{*}}+\cdots\ \;.$$ (12)

Using the extensivity of the entropy in ${\cal K}$ and ${\cal N}$ we can write $\bar{\cal S}({\cal K}^{*},{\cal N})=-\beta{\cal K}^{*}-\beta\mu{\cal N}+\cdots$, where we have borrowed the statistical mechanics notation involving the equilibrium “chemical potential” $\mu$. At the extremum, this leads to the simplification of the first two terms in Eq. (12) to $\bar{\cal S}({\cal K}^{*},{\cal N})+\alpha{\cal K}^{*}=-\beta\mu{\cal N}$ from which it then follows that:

$$\omega({\cal K},{\cal N}) =2^{-\frac{1}{2{\cal N}T^{2}c_{{\cal N}}}{\Delta{\cal K}}^{2}}\;2^{-\beta\mu{\cal N}}\;.$$ (13)

Thus, the probability distribution in Eq. (11) is a Gaussian peaked at ${\bar{\cal K}}={\cal K}^{*}=\kappa^{*}{\cal N}$ linear in ${\cal N}$ with a width (root mean square deviation) $\Delta_{\rm rms}\propto\sqrt{{\cal N}T^{2}c_{{\cal N}}}$, where $c_{{\cal N}}=-{\partial{\cal K}}/{\partial T}{|}_{{\cal K}^{*},{\cal N}}$ is a positive intensive quantity analogous to the specific heat in thermodynamics, which, in physical systems measures the increase in energy induced by an increase in temperature and controls energy fluctuations around the thermal equilibrium state at temperature $T$. In our case, note the negative sign in the definition of $c_{{\cal N}}$: this accounts for the fact that increasing temperature (i.e., increasing entropy) implies a decrease in complexity. Moreover, Eq. (13) and the sum rule $\sum_{P}\;\Omega(P,{\cal N})=\sum_{{\cal K}=0}^{{\cal N}}\omega({\cal K},{\cal N})=|G|^{\cal N}$ determines the leading behavior of the chemical potential, $\mu=-T\log_{2}|G|$.

It is important to stress that we expect that generic solutions of the extremum condition $\alpha=\beta(\kappa^{*})$ for $\kappa^{*}$, which depend on the gate set through the value of $\alpha$, are neither 0 nor 1 but lie in between, $0<\kappa^{*}<1$. This expectation underscore two important conclusions of our paper, which we conjecture will survive more rigorous treatments: (a) generic circuits display a finite circuit compressibility with a compression factor $\eta=(1-{\cal K}^{*}/{\cal N})$, with $0<\eta<1$; and (b) the average complexity grows linearly with the depth of the circuit. We stress that these results hinge on an important and non-trivial feature that emerges from the thermodynamic arguments at the root of Eq. (8) and the resulting condition $\alpha=\beta(\kappa)$, namely the balance between two competing effects: the exponential increase in the density of states $\nu({\cal K})\approx 2^{\alpha{\cal K}}$ and the decrease in the entropy $\bar{\cal S}({\cal K},{\cal N})$ with increasing ${\cal K}$. We also note that, while our extensivity assumption for $\log_{2}\nu({\cal K})$ and the linear increase of the average complexity with circuit depth should hold up to a maximum complexity exponential in $n$, $\mathcal{{\cal K}}_{\rm max}\sim n\;2^{n}$, our focus is on polynomial (in $n$) size circuits with ${\cal N}>>n$.

To further motivate the notion that generic circuits display a finite compressibility with a compression factor $0<\eta<1$, we consider the following scenario leading to a lower bound on $\eta$. Consider a random circuit of 3-bit Toffoli gates and imagine “pushing” a gate through the circuit until the gate encounters either (i) a gate with which it does not commute, in which case we stop; or (ii) its inverse, in which case the pair (the gate and its inverse) annihilate, decreasing the size of the circuit by two gates (see Fig. 1). For a Toffoli gate, the probability that it does commute with a gate on its path is of the order $1-{\cal O}(1/n)$, or equivalently, a gate can be “pushed” through ${\cal O}(n)$ gates before either stopping as in case (i) or annihilating as in case (ii). The overall probability of annihilation is ${\cal O}(1/n^{2})$, accounting for the probability ${\cal O}(1/n^{3})$ that the inverse is met in any of the ${\cal O}(n)$ attempts before stopping. Hence, this process leads to a compression of the circuit by a factor $(1-2\xi/n^{2})$ of its original size, where $\xi$ is a constant of ${\cal O}(1)$. This implies that circuits with greater than ${\cal O}(n^{2})$ universal (Toffoli) gates are compressible with $\eta=2\xi/n^{2}$, setting a lower bound for compressibility of random circuits of universal gates. Indeed, since the probability of annihilation of linear gates - NOTs and CNOTs - scales more favorably as $1/n$ and $1/n^{2}$ respectively, circuits comprised of gates from the universal set of Toffolis, CNOTs, and NOTs are more compressible with a compression factor $\eta$ above the Toffoli bound. [It is worth mentioning that since any linear circuit can be implemented with ${\cal O}(n^{2})$ gates, purely linear circuits are highly compressible, with $\eta\sim(1-n^{2}/{\cal N})$.]

Figure 1: An example of “pushing” a Toffoli gate $g$ past gates $h_{1},h_{2},\dots,h_{p}$ so as to annihilate $g$ with its inverse $\tilde{g}$ (identical to $g$ for a Toffoli gate), thereby reducing the circuit size by two gates. Typically, in a random circuit over $n$ bitlines, a Toffoli gate can travel past ${\cal O}(n)$ gates with which it commutes before encountering either a gate with which it does not commute or, with probability ${\cal O}(1/n^{3})$, its inverse. The process depicted leads to a compression of the circuit size by a factor $(1-2\xi/n^{2})$, where $\xi$ is a constant of ${\cal O}(1)$.

Finally, we note that a compression factor $0<\eta<1$ also implies that circuit collisions - i.e., multiple circuits implementing the same permutation - are non-negligible. The importance of collisions can also be argued from a lower bound for ${\cal S}(P,{\cal N})$,

$$\left[{\cal N}-{\cal K}(P)\right]\;\log_{2}|G|^{1/2}\leq{\cal S}(P,{\cal N})\;,$$ (14)

which highlights the fact that there are exponentially many circuits that realize any $P$. This result can be derived from a bound on ${\cal S}({1\!\!1},{\cal N}-{\cal K}(P))$, which enters Eq. (3). In particular, we proceed by placing bounds on the entropy of identities, ${\cal S}({1\!\!1},{\cal N})$. By expressing ${\cal N}=\sum_{\ell}a_{\ell}\;2^{\ell}$, where $a_{\ell}=0,1$ are the binary coefficients in the expansion of ${\cal N}$ in base 2 (we shall assume that ${\cal N}$ is even), and then using Eq. (2) multiple times, it follows that ${\cal S}({1\!\!1},{\cal N})\geq\sum_{\ell}a_{\ell}\;{\cal S}({1\!\!1},2^{\ell})\geq\sum_{\ell}a_{\ell}\;2^{\ell-1}{\cal S}({1\!\!1},2)=\frac{{\cal N}}{2}{\cal S}({1\!\!1},2)=\frac{{\cal N}}{2}\log_{2}|G|$, where we used that a two-gate identity can be written as the product of any gate $g$ and its inverse $g^{-1}$. This bound on the entropy of identities, together with Eq. (3), lead to Eq. (14).

Thermodynamic mixing of circuits: The thermodynamic approach presented above relies on the microcanonical assumption, namely that all ${\cal N}$-gate circuits of a given functionality $P$ appear with equal weight in the count $\Omega(P,{\cal N})$. This assumption hinges on “ergodicity” in the space of circuits of a given functionality, a concept which implies a “microscopic” dynamical process and “equilibration” of collections of gates in a circuit, analogous to the thermalization induced by microscopic collisions of atoms or molecules in a gas. We shall return to the complex and interesting question of microscopic dynamics below. Here we concentrate on a coarse-grained model for thermodynamic mixing on a “macroscopic” scale by dividing the circuit into smaller pieces, and assuming that thermalization occurs on a “mesoscopic” scale. In particular, the equilibration of an arbitrary (polynomial size) circuit is established by connecting a string of short $m$-gate segments/subcircuits. These “mesoscopic” subcircuits are assumed to be large enough to obey the laws of circuit thermodynamics introduced above but small enough so that an appropriate set of “microscopic” dynamical rules leads to rapid equilibration in a time $\tau_{eq}$.

More precisely, consider the situation depicted in Fig. 2, in which two $m$-gate subcircuits of functionality $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$, respectively, are allowed to exchange gates and functionality via some dynamical rules. Thermalization at the mesoscopic scale implies that, after a time scale $\tau_{eq}$, (a) the counting of individual subcircuits (Fig. 2a) satisfy the microcanonical assumption, and (b) the concatenated circuit with $2m$ gates and functionality $P_{1}P_{2}$ satisfies the thermodynamic inequalities Eqs. (2) and (5).

Figure 2: The elementary C-gate represents the equilibration between two circuits of equal sizes ${\cal N}_{1}={\cal N}_{2}=m$. The two individual $m$-gate circuits, depicted in (a), have functionalities $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$, respectively. In (b) they are brought into contact and exchange gates and functionality, realizing a combined functionality $P_{1}P_{2}$, while preserving the total number of gates ${\cal N}_{1}+{\cal N}_{2}=2m$. In (c), following equilibration (symbolized by the red double-arrow in (b)) the $2m$-gate circuit is split in the middle such that each of the partitions contains $m$ gates and represents, respectively, functionalities $P^{\prime}_{1}$ and $P^{\prime}_{2}$, with $P^{\prime}_{1}\,P^{\prime}_{2}=P_{1}\,P_{2}$.

Given the mesoscopic thermalization assumption, we are now in position to define a coarse-grained model for thermodynamic mixing that takes as input a circuit $C$ that is split into $M$ subcircuits, each comprising of $m={\cal N}/M$ gates: $C=c_{1}c_{2}...c_{M}$. A subcircuit $c_{i}$ ($i=1,\dots,M$) can be thought of as a degree of freedom in a $d$-dimensional space with $d=|G|^{m}$ states, i.e., a dit; and thus a circuit can be viewed as a string of $M$ such dits. The coarse-grained mixing of the full circuit $C$ is implemented as a circuit acting on dit-strings, i.e., a “circuit acting on circuits” - hereafter referred to as a C-circuit - built out of gates acting on dits, i.e., “gates acting on circuits” - referred to as C-gates. Fig. 3 depicts a brickwall C-circuit of C-gates acting on a pair of neighboring dits $c_{i-1}(\tau)$ and $c_{i}(\tau)$ in layer $\tau$ and evolving them into $c_{i-1}(\tau+1)$ and $c_{i}(\tau+1)$ after one “time” step, i.e., into layer $\tau+1$ of the C-circuit. The brickwall C-circuit is a scrambler of circuits, much as usual brickwall circuits of dit- or qudit-gates are scramblers of states of dits or qudits (see for example Ref. [7] and references therein).

Figure 3: A brickwall C-circuit that progressively expands the “mesoscopic” (local) equilibrium established between pairs of $m$-gate subcircuits (depicted by the gray boxes) into a thermodynamically mixed equilibrium state for the full circuit, while preserving the functionality of the original concatenation of gates. Neighboring $m$-gate subcircuits are brought into local thermal equilibrium via the exchange (depicted by the two-headed red arrows) of gates and functionality (while preserving both the number of gates and the combined functionality of the subcircuits). A subcircuit is paired with either its neighbor to the left or to the right, alternating in each time step (following the pattern of blue arrows).

The action of an individual C-gate, which takes place on a time scale longer than $\tau_{eq}$, is based on the mesoscopic equilibration assumption, and is implemented in three steps that parallel those depicted in Fig. 2, as follows: (a) take $c_{i-1}(\tau)$ and $c_{i}(\tau)$, with functionalities $P(c_{i-1}(\tau))$ and $P(c_{i}(\tau))$; (b) draw a circuit $c_{\rm aux}$ uniformly out of the $\Omega(P,2m)$ $2m$-gate circuits with functionality $P=P(c_{i-1}(\tau))\,P(c_{i}(\tau))$; and (c) split the $2m$-gate circuit $c_{\rm aux}$ into two $m$-gate circuits $c_{i-1}(\tau+1)$ and $c_{i}(\tau+1)$. We note that the action of a C-gate on the two dits $c_{i-1}$ and $c_{i}$ preserves functionality of the product of the two associated sub-circuits, a “conservation law” that maintains the functionality of the overall circuit. (We also note that the stochastic process defined above could be replaced by the action of a C-circuit built from deterministic C-gates with given substitution truth tables chosen randomly.)

As alluded to above, the action of the brickwall C-circuit progressively expands the “local” equilibrium within each of the $m$-gate subcircuits into an thermodynamically mixed equilibrium state for a full circuit $C$ of any size ${\cal N}$. The equilibration process induced via the C-circuit is analogous to the equilibration of connected thermodynamic systems (e.g., containers of gas molecules) that were initially isolated from one another. More specifically, this thermodynamic mixing of circuits reflects three properties of the explicit C-circuit implementation: (i) the circuit entropy after the application of each C-gate never decreases, but increases or remains the same; (ii) through subsequent layers of the scrambling process, functionalities of individual subcircuits change but the functionality of the overall concatenated circuit is preserved; and, most importantly, (iii) the thermalization in the space of dits defining the action of a stochastic C-gate and the layer-by-layer evolution of the circuit leads to the branching into a multitude of paths, which implies that memory of the initial circuit is lost, i.e., the scrambling process is irreversible.

Given the one-dimensional brickwall arrangement of gates acting on $M$ dits, such as the C-circuit in Fig. 3, the number of layers required for scrambling the initial dit-string (in our case the initial circuit $C$) should scale as $M^{\gamma}$. In random circuits acting on dits without conservation laws $\gamma=1$ [6, 8, 9, 7] while in the presence of locally conserved quantities we expect $\gamma\geq 2$ [10, 11, 12]. For the case of scrambling by C-circuits, a C-gate acting on two subcircuits of functionalities $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$, respectively, may change $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ but preserves $P_{1}P_{2}$. This more complicated “non-linear” conservation law has not yet been analyzed in detail but we expect that both the saturation of the entropy to its maximum attainable value and the state of uniform average complexity, $\bar{{\cal K}_{i}}={\cal K}(P)/M$, for each of the $M$ subcircuits of a C-circuit $C$ are reached within a time polynomial in $M$.

An application to Circuit Obfuscation: The C-circuit-based thermodynamic mixing of circuits presented above provides a conceptual framework for circuit obfuscation. Circuit obfuscation can be viewed as a gedanken experiment: take two ${\cal N}$-gate circuits, $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$, with the same functionality $P$, and apply to each of them a functionality preserving scrambling procedure that runs in polynomial time. As defined in Ref. [13], Indistinguishability Obfuscation (IO) holds if at the end of the process an adversary with polynomial resources cannot distinguish whether a given obfuscated circuit originated from $C_{1}$ or $C_{2}$. Indeed, as we have seen from the discussions above, a sufficiently large C-circuit is a good circuit obfuscator since the scrambling process removes all information about initial circuits and thus an adversary with polynomial resources would not be able to distinguish which scrambled circuit originated from which initial circuit.

We note that the general line of reasoning presented so far makes certain assumptions, some of which will be challenged below. In particular, the notion of fragmentation of the space of circuits of a given size and functionality into disconnected sectors, which we introduce shortly, will restrict the thermodynamic framework to individual sectors. As discussed below, fragmentation of circuit space has conceptual implications for the problem of circuit obfuscation.

Microscopic dynamics of circuits: All thermodynamics-based arguments presented thus far rely on the assumption of ergodicity, namely that some microscopic dynamical rules that connect circuits of same size and functionality lead to a uniform covering of the space of all such circuits. Moreover, we assumed that equilibration across the space of circuits is achieved in polynomial time, i.e., that, given the dynamical rules, connecting any two circuits can be achieved with a number of steps that scales polynomially in the number of gates, ${\cal N}$. This assumption raises a number of interesting and up to now unexplored questions.

To begin with, by contrast to motion of molecules in a gas in the course of collisions, which is governed by physical laws, there is no unique or natural dynamics for moving/colliding gates in a circuit in ways that preserve functionality. A naive notion of gate collisions, analogous to collisions of gas particles, must take into account the non-commutative algebra of gates in a universal set. If one defines a collision as an interchange of gates $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ acting on shared bitlines, then preserving functionality before and after the collision implies, generically, a substitution $g_{1}\,g_{2}\leftrightarrow g_{2}\,D\,g_{1}$, where $D$ is a “debris” gate needed so that algebraically $g_{1}\,g_{2}=g_{2}\,D\,g_{1}$. An example of such a collision is illustrated in Fig. 4a for two Toffoli gates. A macroscopic number of such debris-generating collisions would inevitably lead to an irreversible increase in the size of the circuit, violating the constraint of a fixed number of gates.

Figure 4: (a) An example of a collision (the interchange) $g_{1}\,g_{2}\leftrightarrow g_{2}\,D\,g_{1}$, where the debris gate $D$ is needed to preserve the functionality of the initial two-gate segment of the circuit. (b) An example of a substitution of a segment with $k=3$ gates, $g_{1}\,g_{2}\,g_{3}\leftrightarrow g^{\prime}_{1}\,g^{\prime}_{2}\,g^{\prime}_{3}$. The same arrangements in (b) can be used as examples of two functionally equivalent circuits with ${\cal N}=3$ that cannot be connected via a $k=2$ substitution rule.

A more fruitful direction is to define a dynamics in the space of circuits based on gate-substitution rules that exchange a string of gates with an alternate string with same size and functionality. One can view an ${\cal N}$-gate circuit as a quasi-1D system, or a chain of ${\cal N}$ sites, in which a gate $g_{i}$ (a non-Abelian group element) is placed at each site $i$. Global functionality is determined by $P=g_{1}\;g_{2}\cdots g_{\cal N}$, and a local microscopic dynamics must preserve this overall functionality. The functionality-preserving local dynamical model we have in mind involves the following substitution of a string of $k$ consecutive gates:

$$\left(g^{\,}_{i},g^{\,}_{i+1},\dots,g^{\,}_{i+k}\right) \longleftrightarrow\left(g^{\prime}_{i},g^{\prime}_{i+1},\dots,g^{\prime}_{i+k}\right)$$ (15a)

$$g_{i}\,g_{i+1}\,\dots\,g_{i+k} \;\;=\;\;g^{\prime}_{i}\,g^{\prime}_{i+1}\,\dots\,g^{\prime}_{i+k}\;.$$ (15b)

An example of a $k=3$ circuit identity involving Toffoli and CNOT gates is shown in Fig. 4b. Substitution rules for fixed (and small) $k$ can be built from a catalog of strings of $k$ gates that multiply to the same permutation. Transition probabilities among the $k$-length strings, in the case the catalog is exhaustive, can be chosen to be

$$T_{\left(g^{\,}_{i},\dots,g^{\,}_{i+k}\right),\left(g^{\prime}_{i},\dots,g^{\prime}_{i+k}\right)}=\frac{1}{\Omega(g_{i}\,\dots\,g_{i+k},k)}\;\delta_{g_{i}\,\dots\,g_{i+k},g^{\prime}_{i}\,\dots\,g^{\prime}_{i+k}}\;.$$ (16)

We note that the stochastic C-gate used above can be implemented via such a transition matrix element with $k=2m$. Alternatively, one can dilute the connectivity associated with the $T$-matrix so that not all pairs of $k$-strings satisfying Eqs. (15) are connected via a matrix element. We note that since the number of circuits with $k$ gates is $|G|^{k}$, enumerating the equivalence rules for large $k$ becomes prohibitive.

While to our knowledge this type of dynamical model has not been discussed in the literature and a detailed study of the model is outside the scope of this paper, we can already point to a set of fundamental issues that have important implications for the discussion of circuit thermodynamics. In particular, our intuition suggests that the space of circuits with functionality $P=g_{1}\;g_{2}\cdots g_{\cal N}$ evolving via $k$-range rules will generically fragment into a number of disconnected sectors. A simple example that supports the notion of fragmentation is to consider a functionality-preserving dynamics that only connects 2-strings if and only if two neighboring gates $g_{i}$ and $g_{i+1}$ commute, in which case we exchange $(g_{i},g_{i+1})\leftrightarrow(g_{i+1},g_{i})$ with probability 1/2. This dynamics allows a gate to move left and right through the list of gates in the circuit by passing other gates with which it commutes, but not past those gates with which it does not commute. This dynamics preserves the number of gates of each type in the circuit and thus does not allow one to connect the two equivalent circuits in Fig. 4b. A less restricted dynamics with $k=2$ in this same example would still not allow the two sequences of three gates in Fig. 4b to be connected.

Fragmentation implies that a particular dynamics is ergodic only within individual sectors, and thus all the thermodynamic results would apply, but only within each disconnected sector. Implicit in this statement is that, within a given sector, ergodicity is reached within a number of steps defining the particular dynamics that is polynomial in ${\cal N}$. In this case, the finite compressibility of generic circuits is an example of a property that survives in the fragmented system, where the compression factor should be determined by some weighted average over fragments.

The above intuition concerning fragmentation and polynomial thermalization is further supported by arguments from the theory of computational complexity. According to these arguments, connecting any two circuits of the same functionality and size via a polynomial number of local functionality preserving dynamical moves would imply the equality NP = coNP of two complexity classes, namely NP - decision problems for which polynomial time solutions are not known but for which a YES solution can be checked in polynomial time; and coNP - decision problems for which polynomial time solutions are not known but for which a NO solution can be checked in polynomial time. Even though it is widely believed that NP $\neq$ coNP, rigorously justifying this belief (or its negation) is an open problem in computer science. In order to understand the above claim consider the Circuit Equivalence problem, the problem of deciding whether two (polynomial-sized) circuits are equivalent. Circuit Equivalence is known to be a problem in coNP, since a NO solution can be easily checked by comparing the outputs of the two circuits on a given input. At the same time, if any two circuits could be connected by a polynomial number of dynamical moves, even if difficult to find, this set of moves can be used to verify a YES solution of the Circuit Equivalence problem in polynomial time, placing Circuit Equivalence also in NP. Similarly, a parallel set of arguments can be used to argue that Circuit Inequivalence, i.e., the problem of deciding that two (polynomial-sized) circuits are inequivalent, which is a problem in NP, is also in class coNP since the connectivity of any two circuits via a polynomial number of moves could be used to verify the NO solution of Circuit Inequivalence (i.e., equivalence) in polynomial time. Moreover, it is also well known that Circuit Equivalence and Circuit Inequivalence are among the hardest problems in their respective coNP and NP classes, i.e., they are in classes coNP-complete and NP-complete, respectively. “Completeness” indicates that any problem in coNP or NP can be reduced, respectively, to Circuit Equivalence or Circuit Inequivalence in polynomial time. Given that a polynomial number of dynamical moves placed Circuit Equivalence in NP and Circuit Inequivalence in coNP the conclusions of the above line of argumentation are that: (i) all problems in coNP are in NP (coNP $\subset$ NP); (ii) all problems in NP are in coNP (NP $\subset$ coNP); and thus that (iii) NP = coNP. As already alluded to above, this conclusion contradicts widely accepted beliefs in computational complexity and implies that, in our context, fragmentation is unavoidable, regardless of whether the polynomial sequence of moves connecting pairs of circuits is easy or hard to find.

Clearly, fragmentation and the accompanying broken ergodicity significantly alters the discussion of circuit obfuscation. For a system with multiple sectors, the relevant question becomes: given two circuits $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$, can one decide in polynomial time whether they belong to the same ergodic (thermalized) sector or not? Physical intuition based on the scrambling of information, irreversibility, and chaos in closed systems with large number of degrees of freedom leads to a natural conjecture that, for non-trivial dynamical rules, this is a hard (NP) decision problem. If this is the case, then the thermodynamic framework does in fact provide a path to Indistinguishability Obfuscation of any two circuits, $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$. Otherwise the thermodynamic framework could only establish IO for circuits in the same sector.

Discussion and future directions

This paper presents a thermodynamic framework for describing course-grained properties of large ${\cal N}$-gate reversible classical circuits with ${\cal N}\gg n$ (with ${\cal N}$ polynomial in $n$, the number of bitlines of the circuit) and a given functionality, defined by the permutation $P$ implemented by the circuit. Our construction of circuit thermodynamics is based on three assumptions that underpin the logical consistency of the approach: (i) the functionality $P$ only appears through the circuit complexity ${\cal K}(P)$, i.e., the minimum number of gates required for the implementation of the permutation $P$; (ii) the entropy defined by counting of the number of possible ${\cal N}$-gate circuits implementing $P$ is extensive in ${\cal N}$ and ${\cal K}(P)$; and (iii) ergodicity in the space of circuits, which as a result of fragmentation can only occur in disconnected sectors, requires a “time” (i.e., number of dynamical moves) that is polynomial in ${\cal N}$, the size of the circuit.

The fragmentation of the space of circuits suggests a number of questions we expect to address through more detailed analytical and computational studies: (i) is there is a critical value $k_{c}$ such that if $k_{c}\leq k\leq{\cal N}$ the space of circuits of size ${\cal N}$ and functionality $P$ becomes fully connected, and how does this value scales with the number of bitlines $n$? (ii) If the space is fragmented, how does the number of fragments scale with $k$ and ${\cal N}$ and (possibly) the complexity of $P$? (iii) can one make more precise statements about the hardness of deciding whether any two circuits belong to the same or different sectors? We note that even though we raise these questions in the context of the permutation group $S_{2^{n}}$, the thermodynamic framework and the issues it raises can be generalized to other groups.

In summary, the thermodynamic perspective to complexity and functionality of circuits provides a framework that may stimulate new ways of thinking and new problems at the interface between physics and computer science. In particular, the issue of fragmentation, which is a topic of much current interest to the physics communities working on classical and quantum dynamics [14, 15, 16, 17, 18], may raise new questions for the computer science community, which to our knowledge have not been explored. Conversely, the question of the scaling of information scrambling rates with system size for systems with “multiplicative” rather than additive conservation laws (as is the case with the functionality of circuits) may intrigue and inspire physicists interested in classical and quantum dynamics.