skip to main content
research-article

Characterization and Lower Bounds for Branching Program Size using Projective Dimension

Published:11 February 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study projective dimension, a graph parameter, denoted by pd(G) for a bipartite graph G, introduced by Pudlák and Rödl (1992). For a Boolean function f (on n bits), Pudlák and Rödl associated a bipartite graph Gf and showed that size of the optimal branching program computing f, denoted by bpsize(f), is at least pd(Gf) (also denoted by pd(f)). Hence, proving lower bounds for pd(f) implies lower bounds for bpsize(f). Despite several attempts (Pudlák and Rödl (1992), Rónyai et al. (2000)), proving super-linear lower bounds for projective dimension of explicit families of graphs has remained elusive.

We observe that there exist a Boolean function f for which the gap between the pd(f) and bpsize(f)) is 2Ω(n). Motivated by the argument in Pudlák and Rödl (1992), we define two variants of projective dimension: projective dimension with intersection dimension 1, denoted by upd(f), and bitwise decomposable projective dimension, denoted by bitpdim(f). We show the following results:

(a) We observe that there exist a Boolean function f for which the gap between upd(f) and bpsize(f) is 2Ω(n). In contrast, we also show that the bitwise decomposable projective dimension characterizes size of the branching program up to a polynomial factor. That is, there exists a constant c > 0 and for any function f,

bitpdim(f)/6 ≤ bpsize(f) ≤ (bitpdim(f))c.

(b) We introduce a new candidate family of functions f for showing super-polynomial lower bounds for bitpdim(f). As our main result, for this family of functions, we demonstrate gaps between pd(f) and the above two new measures for f:

pd(f) = O(√n)   upd(f) = Ω (n)   bitpdim(f) = Ω (n1.5 / log n).

We adapt Nechiporuk’s techniques for our linear algebraic setting to prove the best-known bpsize lower bounds for bitpdim. Motivated by this linear algebraic setting of our main result, we derive exponential lower bounds for two restricted variants of pd(f) and upd(f) by observing that they are exactly equal to well-studied graph parameters—bipartite clique cover number and bipartite partition number, respectively.

References

  1. Romas Aleliunas, Richard M. Karp, Richard J. Lipton, László Lovász, and Charles Rackoff. 1979. Random walks, universal traversal sequences, and the complexity of maze problems. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 218--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Eric Allender, Robert Beals, and Mitsunori Ogihara. 1999. The complexity of matrix rank and feasible systems of linear equations. Comput. Complex. 8, 2 (1999), 99--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. László Babai and Péter Frankl. 1992. Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics with Applications to Geometry and Computer Science. The University of Chicago, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paul Beame, Nathan Grosshans, Pierre McKenzie, and Luc Segoufin. 2016. Nondeterminism and an abstract formulation of Nečiporuk’s lower bound method. Trans. Comput. Theory 9, 1 (2016), 5:1--5:34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Béla Bollobás. 2001. Random Graphs (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Philippe Delsarte. 1976. Association schemes and t-designs in regular semilattices. J. Combin. Theory A 20, 2 (Mar. 1976), 230--243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Péter Frankl and Ronald L. Graham. 1985. Intersection theorems for vector spaces. Eur. J. Combin. 6, 2 (Jun. 1985), 183--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Péter Frankl and Richard M. Wilson. 1986. The Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem for vector spaces. J. Combin. Theory A 43, 2 (Nov. 1986), 228--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Stasys Jukna. 2012. Boolean Function Complexity: Advances and Frontiers. Algorithms and Combinatorics, Vol. 27. Springer, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ralf Koetter and Frank R. Kschischang. 2008. Coding for errors and erasures in random network coding. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 54, 8 (2008), 3579--3591. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Eyal Kushilevitz and Noam Nisan. 1997. Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Satyanarayana V. Lokam. 2009. Complexity lower bounds using linear algebra. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 4, 182 (Jan. 2009), 1--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Benjian Lv and Kaishun Wang. 2012. The eigenvalues of q-Kneser graphs. Discr. Math. 312, 6 (2012), 1144--1147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Michael Mitzenmacher and Eli Upfal. 2005. Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. E. I. Nechiporuk. 1966. On a Boolean function. Dokl. Acad. Sci. USSR 164, 4 (1966), 765--766.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Pavel Pudlák and Vojtěch Rödl. 1992. A combinatorial approach to complexity. Combinatorica 12, 2 (1992), 221--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Pavel Pudlák and Vojtěch Rödl. 1994. Some combinatorial-algebraic problems from complexity theory. Discr. Math. 136, 1--3 (Dec. 1994), 253--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Alexander A. Razborov. 1990. Applications of matrix methods to the theory of lower bounds in computational complexity. Combinatorica 10, 1 (1990), 81--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Omer Reingold. 2008. Undirected connectivity in log-space. J. ACM 55, 4 (2008), 17:1--17:24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Steven Roman. 2007. Advanced Linear Algebra (3rd ed.). Springer, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lajos Rónyai, László Babai, and Murali K. Ganapathy. 2002. On the number of zero-patterns of a sequence of polynomials. J. AMS 14 (2002), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Heribert Vollmer. 1999. Introduction to Circuit Complexity: A Uniform Approach. Springer New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Characterization and Lower Bounds for Branching Program Size using Projective Dimension

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computation Theory
      ACM Transactions on Computation Theory  Volume 11, Issue 2
      June 2019
      169 pages
      ISSN:1942-3454
      EISSN:1942-3462
      DOI:10.1145/3312746
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 February 2019
      • Accepted: 1 November 2018
      • Revised: 1 August 2018
      • Received: 1 February 2017
      Published in toct Volume 11, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!