Results 1  10
of
18
Lower Bounds for Deterministic and Nondeterministic Branching Programs
 in Proceedings of the FCT'91, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1991
"... We survey lower bounds established for the complexity of computing explicitly given Boolean functions by switchingandrectifier networks, branching programs and switching networks. We first consider the unrestricted case and then proceed to various restricted models. Among these are monotone networ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 59 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We survey lower bounds established for the complexity of computing explicitly given Boolean functions by switchingandrectifier networks, branching programs and switching networks. We first consider the unrestricted case and then proceed to various restricted models. Among these are monotone networks, boundedwidth devices , oblivious devices and readk times only devices. 1 Introduction The main goal of the Boolean complexity theory is to prove lower bounds on the complexity of computing "explicitly given" Boolean functions in interesting computational models. By "explicitly given" researchers usually mean "belonging to the class NP ". This is a very plausible interpretation since on the one hand this class contains the overwhelming majority of interesting Boolean functions and on the other hand it is small enough to prevent us from the necessity to take into account counting arguments. To illustrate the second point, let me remind the reader that already the class \Delta p 2 ,...
DynFO: A Parallel, Dynamic Complexity Class
 Journal of Computer and System Sciences
, 1994
"... Traditionally, computational complexity has considered only static problems. Classical Complexity Classes such as NC, P, and NP are defined in terms of the complexity of checking  upon presentation of an entire input  whether the input satisfies a certain property. For many applications of compu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 49 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Traditionally, computational complexity has considered only static problems. Classical Complexity Classes such as NC, P, and NP are defined in terms of the complexity of checking  upon presentation of an entire input  whether the input satisfies a certain property. For many applications of computers it is more appropriate to model the process as a dynamic one. There is a fairly large object being worked on over a period of time. The object is repeatedly modified by users and computations are performed. We develop a theory of Dynamic Complexity. We study the new complexity class, Dynamic FirstOrder Logic (DynFO). This is the set of properties that can be maintained and queried in firstorder logic, i.e. relational calculus, on a relational database. We show that many interesting properties are in DynFO including multiplication, graph connectivity, bipartiteness, and the computation of minimum spanning trees. Note that none of these problems is in static FO, and this f...
TimeSpace Tradeoffs for Branching Programs
, 1999
"... We obtain the first nontrivial timespace tradeoff lower bound for functions f : {0, 1}^n → {0, 1} on general branching programs by exhibiting a Boolean function f that requires exponential size to be computed by any branching program of length (1 + ε)n, for some constant ε > 0 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We obtain the first nontrivial timespace tradeoff lower bound for functions f : {0, 1}^n → {0, 1} on general branching programs by exhibiting a Boolean function f that requires exponential size to be computed by any branching program of length (1 + ε)n, for some constant ε > 0. We also give the first separation result between the syntactic and semantic readk models [BRS93] for k > 1 by showing that polynomialsize semantic readtwice branching programs can compute functions that require exponential size on any syntactic readk branching program. We also show...
SuperLinear TimeSpace Tradeoff Lower Bounds for Randomized Computation
, 2000
"... We prove the first timespace lower bound tradeoffs for randomized computation of decision problems. The bounds hold even in the case that the computation is allowed to have arbitrary probability of error on a small fraction of inputs. Our techniques are an extension of those used by Ajtai [Ajt99a, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove the first timespace lower bound tradeoffs for randomized computation of decision problems. The bounds hold even in the case that the computation is allowed to have arbitrary probability of error on a small fraction of inputs. Our techniques are an extension of those used by Ajtai [Ajt99a, Ajt99b] in his timespace tradeoffs for deterministic RAM algorithms computing element distinctness and for Boolean branching programs computing a natural quadratic form. Ajtai's bounds were of the following form...
TimeSpace Tradeoff Lower Bounds for Randomized Computation of Decision Problems
 In Proc. of 41st FOCS
, 2000
"... We prove the first timespace lower bound tradeoffs for randomized computation of decision problems. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove the first timespace lower bound tradeoffs for randomized computation of decision problems.
TimeSpace Tradeoffs, Multiparty Communication Complexity, and NearestNeighbor Problems
 In 34th Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC’02
, 2002
"... We extend recent techniques for timespace tradeoff lower bounds using multiparty communication complexity ideas. Using these arguments, for inputs from large domains we prove larger tradeoff lower bounds than previously known for general branching programs, yielding time lower bounds of the form T ..."
Abstract

Cited by 20 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We extend recent techniques for timespace tradeoff lower bounds using multiparty communication complexity ideas. Using these arguments, for inputs from large domains we prove larger tradeoff lower bounds than previously known for general branching programs, yielding time lower bounds of the form T = n) when space S = n , up from T = n log n) for the best previous results. We also prove the first unrestricted separation of the power of general and oblivious branching programs by proving that 1GAP , which is trivial on general branching programs, has a timespace tradeoff of the form T = (n=S)) on oblivious Finally, using timespace tradeoffs for branching programs, we improve the lower bounds on query time of data structures for nearest neighbor problems in d dimensions from d= log n), proved in the cellprobe model [8, 5], to d) or log d= log log d) or even d log d) (depending on the metric space involved) in slightly less general but more reasonable data structure models.
Neither Reading Few Bits Twice nor Reading Illegaly Helps Much
 Discrete Appl. Math
, 1996
"... We first consider socalled (1; +s)branching programs in which along every consistent path at most s variables are tested more than once. We prove that any such program computing a characteristic function of a linear code C has size at least 2\Omega\Gamma2/1 , where d 1 and d 2 are the minim ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We first consider socalled (1; +s)branching programs in which along every consistent path at most s variables are tested more than once. We prove that any such program computing a characteristic function of a linear code C has size at least 2\Omega\Gamma2/1 , where d 1 and d 2 are the minimal distances of C and its dual C : We apply this criterion to explicit linear codes and obtain a superpolynomial lower bound for s = o(n= log n): Then we introduce a natural generalization of readktimes and (1; +s) branching programs that we call semantic branching programs. These programs correspond to corrupting Turing machines which, unlike eraser machines, are allowed to read input bits even illegally, i.e. in excess of their quota on multiple readings, but in that case they receive in response an unpredictably corrupted value. We generalize the abovementioned bound to the semantic case, and also prove exponential lower bounds for semantic readonce nondeterministic branching programs.
Hierarchy Theorems For kOBDDs AND kIBDDs
, 1998
"... Almost the same types of restricted branching programs (or binary decision diagrams BDDs) are considered in complexity theory and in applications like hardware verification. These models are readonce branching programs (free BDDs) and certain types of oblivious branching programs (ordered and in ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Almost the same types of restricted branching programs (or binary decision diagrams BDDs) are considered in complexity theory and in applications like hardware verification. These models are readonce branching programs (free BDDs) and certain types of oblivious branching programs (ordered and indexed BDDs with k layers). The complexity of the satisfiability problem for these restricted branching programs is investigated and tight hierarchy results are proved for the classes of functions representable by k layers of ordered or indexed BDDs of polynomial size. Keywords: branching programs, binary decision diagrams, communication complexity, hierarchies, lower bounds. Supported in part by DFG grant We 1066/7. 1 1. INTRODUCTION Branching programs are a well established computation model for discrete functions. Definition 1: A branching program G for a function f : A n ! B, where A = f0; : : : ; a \Gamma 1g and B = f0; : : : ; b \Gamma 1g is a directed acyclic graph with on...
A Hierarchy for (1,+k)Branching Programs with Respect to k
, 1996
"... Branching programs (b. p.'s) or decision diagrams are a general graphbased model of sequential computation. The b. p.'s of polynomial size are a nonuniform counterpart of LOG. Lower bounds for different kinds of restricted b. p.'s are intensively investigated. An important restriction are so cal ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Branching programs (b. p.'s) or decision diagrams are a general graphbased model of sequential computation. The b. p.'s of polynomial size are a nonuniform counterpart of LOG. Lower bounds for different kinds of restricted b. p.'s are intensively investigated. An important restriction are so called kb. p.'s, where each computation reads each input bit at most k times. Although, for more restricted syntactic kb.p.'s, exponential lower bounds are proven and there is a series of exponential lower bounds for 1b. p.'s, this is not true for general (nonsyntactic) kb.p.'s, even for k = 2. Therefore, so called (1; +k)b. p.'s are investigated. For some explicit functions, exponential lower bounds for (1; +k)b. p.'s are known. Investigating the syntactic (1; +k)b. p.'s, Sieling has found functions f n;k which are polynomially easy for syntactic (1; +k)b. p.'s, but exponentially hard for syntactic (1; +(k \Gamma 1))b. p.'s. In the present paper, a similar hierarchy with res...
On The Power Of Different Types Of Restricted Branching Programs
 Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity
, 1994
"... Almost the same types of restricted branching programs (or binary decision diagrams BDDs) are considered in complexity theory and in applications like hardware verification. These models are readonce branching programs (free BDDs) and certain types of oblivious branching programs (ordered and index ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Almost the same types of restricted branching programs (or binary decision diagrams BDDs) are considered in complexity theory and in applications like hardware verification. These models are readonce branching programs (free BDDs) and certain types of oblivious branching programs (ordered and indexed BDDs with k layers). The complexity of the satisfiability problem for these restricted branching programs is investigated and tight hierarchy results are proved for the classes of functions representable by k layers of ordered or indexed BDDs of polynomial size. Supported in part by DFG grant We 1066/71 and 2. 1. INTRODUCTION Branching programs are a well established computation model for discrete functions. Definition 1: A branching program G for a function f : A n ! B m , where A = f0; : : : ; a \Gamma 1g and B = f0; : : : ; b \Gamma 1g is a directed acyclic graph. The sink nodes are labeled by constants from B. The inner nodes are labeled by variables from X = fx 1 ; : : :...