Abstract
We introduce the tree evaluation problem, show that it is in LogDCFL (and hence in P), and study its branching program complexity in the hope of eventually proving a superlogarithmic space lower bound. The input to the problem is a rooted, balanced d-ary tree of height h, whose internal nodes are labeled with d-ary functions on [k] = {1,..., k}, and whose leaves are labeled with elements of [k]. Each node obtains a value in [k] equal to its d-ary function applied to the values of its d children. The output is the value of the root. We show that the standard black pebbling algorithm applied to the binary tree of height h yields a deterministic k-way branching program with O(kh) states solving this problem, and we prove that this upper bound is tight for h = 2 and h = 3. We introduce a simple semantic restriction called thrifty on k-way branching programs solving tree evaluation problems and show that the same state bound of Θ(kh) is tight for all h ≥ 2 for deterministic thrifty programs. We introduce fractional pebbling for trees and show that this yields nondeterministic thrifty programs with Θ(kh/2+1) states solving the Boolean problem “determine whether the root has value 1”, and prove that this bound is tight for h = 2,3,4. We also prove that this same bound is tight for unrestricted nondeterministic k-way branching programs solving the Boolean problem for h = 2,3.
- auf der Heide, F. M. 1979. A comparison between two variations of a pebble game on graphs. Master’s thesis, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Bielefeld.Google Scholar
- Beame, P. and McKenzie, P. 2012. A note on Nečiporuk’s method for nondeterministic branching programs. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/beame/papers/neci.pdf.Google Scholar
- Beame, P., Saks, M., Sun, X., and Vee, E. 2003. Time-space tradeoff lower bounds for randomized computation of decision problems. J. ACM 50, 154--195. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Borodin, A. and Cook, S. 1982. A time-space tradeoff for sorting on a general sequential model of computation. SIAM J. Comput. 11, 2, 287--297.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Borodin, A., Razborov, A., and Smolensky, R. 1993. On lower bounds for read-k-times branching programs. Comput. Complex. 3, 1--18. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Braverman, M., Cook, S., McKenzie, P., Santhanam, R., and Wehr, D. 2009a. Branching programs for tree evaluation. In Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium, Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5734. Springer, 175--186. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Braverman, M., Cook, S., McKenzie, P., Santhanam, R., and Wehr, D. 2009b. Fractional pebbling and thrifty branching programs. In Proceedings of the Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS’09). LIPIcs, 109--120.Google Scholar
- Cook, S. 1974. An observation on time-storage trade off. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 9, 3, 308--316. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Cook, S. and Sethi, R. 1976. Storage requirements for deterministic polynomial time recognizable languages. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 13, 1, 25--37. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Edmonds, J., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., and Sgall, J. 2001. Communication complexity towards lower bounds on circuit depth. Comput. Complex. 10, 3, 210--246.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gál, A., Koucký, M., and McKenzie, P. 2008. Incremental branching programs. Theory Comput. Syst. 43, 2, 159--184. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Goldreich, O. 2008. Computational Complexity: A Conceptual Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Håstad, J. and Wigderson, A. 1993. Composition of the universal relation. In Proceedings of the Advances in Computational Complexity Theory, AMS-DIMACS 13. 119--134.Google Scholar
- Karchmer, M., Raz, R., and Wigderson, A. 1995. Super-Logarithmic depth lower bounds via direct sum in communication complexity. Comput. Complex. 5, 191--204.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Klawe, M. 1985. A tight bound for black and white pebbles on the pyramid. J. ACM 32, 1, 218--228. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lengauer, T. and Tarjan, R. 1980. The space complexity of pebble games on trees. Inf. Process. Lett. 10, 4/5, 184--188.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Loui, M. 1979. The space complexity of two pebble games on trees. Tech. rep. LCS 133, MIT, Cambridge, Massachussetts.Google Scholar
- Mahajan, M. 2007. Polynomial size log depth circuits: between NC
1 and AC
1. Bull. EATCS 91, 30--42.Google Scholar
- Nečiporuk, È. 1966. On a boolean function. Doklady of the Academy of the USSR 169, 4, 765--766. (English translation in Soviet Mathematics Doklady 7, 4, 999--1000.)Google Scholar
- Nordström, J. 2009. New wine into old wineskins: A survey of some pebbling classics with supplemental results. http://people.csail.mit.edu/jakobn/research/.Google Scholar
- Paterson, M. and Hewitt, C. 1970. Comparative schematology. In Record of Project MAC Conference on Concurrent Systems and Parallel Computations. 119--128. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Pudlák, P. 1987. The hierarchy of boolean circuits. Comput. Artif. Intell. 6, 5, 449--468. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Razborov, A. 1991. Lower bounds for deterministic and nondeterministic branching programs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory. 47--60. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sudborough, H. 1978. On the tape complexity of deterministic context-free languages. J. ACM 25, 3, 405--414. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Taitslin, M. 2005. An example of a problem from PTIME and not in NLogSpace. In Proceedings of Tver State University. Appl. Math. 6, 12, 5--22.Google Scholar
- Wegener, I. 1987. The Complexity of Boolean Functions. Wiley-Teubner Series in Computer Science. B. G. Teubner & John Wiley, Stuttgart. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Wegener, I. 2000. Branching Programs and Binary Decision Diagrams. SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
- Wehr, D. 2010. Pebbling and branching programs solving the tree evaluation problem. MSc research paper, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto. February. arXiv:1002.4676.Google Scholar
- Wehr, D. 2011. Lower bound for deterministic semantic-incremental branching programs solving GEN. arXiv:1101.2705.Google Scholar
- Wehr, D. 2012. Exact size of the smallest min-depth branching programs solving the tree evaluation problem. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~wehr/research_docs/thrifty_and_read-once_exact_size.pdf.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Pebbles and Branching Programs for Tree Evaluation
Recommendations
Pebbling, Entropy, and Branching Program Size Lower Bounds
We contribute to the program of proving lower bounds on the size of branching programs solving the Tree Evaluation Problem introduced by Cook et al. [2012]. Proving a superpolynomial lower bound for the size of nondeterministic thrifty branching ...
Read-Once Branching Programs for Tree Evaluation Problems
Toward the ultimate goal of separating L and P, Cook, McKenzie, Wehr, Braverman, and Santhanam introduced the Tree Evaluation Problem (TEP). For fixed integers h and k > 0, FTh(k) is given as a complete, rooted binary tree of height h, in which each ...
On the Complexity of Integer Multiplication in Branching Programs with Multiple Tests and in Read-Once Branching Programs with Limited Nondeterminism
CCC '02: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational ComplexityBranching Programs (BPs) are a well-established computation and representation model for Boolean functions. Although exponential lower bounds for restricted BPs such as Read-Once Branching Programs (BP1s) have been known for a long time, the proof of ...






Comments