In the 70's we had essentially no super-polynomial lower bounds for
natural problems on general circuits beyond depth 2. Two papers kick started
circuit complexity by independently showing no polynomial-size
constant-depth family of circuits can compute the parity function
(inputs with an odd number of ones).
Furst et al. developed random restrictions, i.e., randomly choose a
set of variables and set them to 0 and 1 randomly. This will create a
circuit on a smaller set of variables. For the parity function any
such restricted circuit will compute parity (or its negation) on the
unrestricted variables. They argue that the restricted circuit will
give a polynomial-size circuit for parity of smaller depth. This leads
to a contradiction because one can easily show that parity requires
exponential-size depth-2 circuits.
Ajtai showed lower bounds against expressions described by first-order
formula, equivalent to a uniform version of constant-depth circuits. I
believe Ajtai's proof carries to the nonuniform case as well.
Furst et al. also show that super-quasipolynomial bounds for
constant-depth parity circuits would imply an oracle relative to which
the polynomial-time hierarchy differs from PSPACE. They don't achieve
these stronger bounds but Yao does a few
years later.
Håstad used
a more clever random restriction and much more difficult analysis to
create a switching lemma that implies essentially tight
exponential lower bounds for parity on constant depth
circuits. Razborov gives a simpler proof of the
switching lemma. Paul Beame has a nice self-contained write-up
of Razborov's proof and Fortnow and Laplante has a version using
Kolmogorov complexity. The simplest proof of the original
Furst-Saxe-Siper-Ajtai result comes from the lower bounds on circuits
with modulo p gates for some fixed prime p due to Razborov (in
Russian) and Smolensky. Alas,
Razborov and Smolensky's 1987 papers mark the last major
super-polynomial lower bounds for general circuit models.
> Ajtai showed lower bounds against > expressions described by first-order > formula, equivalent to a uniform version > of constant-depth circuits. I believe > Ajtai's proof carries to the nonuniform > case as well.
The inexpressibility result in Ajtai's paper is stated and proved for first-order formulae enriched with arbitrary built-in predicates. This takes care of non-uniform circuits already (think of the built-in's as advice).