Results 1  10
of
93
Monotone Complexity
, 1990
"... We give a general complexity classification scheme for monotone computation, including monotone spacebounded and Turing machine models not previously considered. We propose monotone complexity classes including mAC i , mNC i , mLOGCFL, mBWBP , mL, mNL, mP , mBPP and mNP . We define a simple ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2350 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give a general complexity classification scheme for monotone computation, including monotone spacebounded and Turing machine models not previously considered. We propose monotone complexity classes including mAC i , mNC i , mLOGCFL, mBWBP , mL, mNL, mP , mBPP and mNP . We define a simple notion of monotone reducibility and exhibit complete problems. This provides a framework for stating existing results and asking new questions. We show that mNL (monotone nondeterministic logspace) is not closed under complementation, in contrast to Immerman's and Szelepcs 'enyi's nonmonotone result [Imm88, Sze87] that NL = coNL; this is a simple extension of the monotone circuit depth lower bound of Karchmer and Wigderson [KW90] for stconnectivity. We also consider mBWBP (monotone bounded width branching programs) and study the question of whether mBWBP is properly contained in mNC 1 , motivated by Barrington's result [Bar89] that BWBP = NC 1 . Although we cannot answer t...
Almost Optimal Lower Bounds for Small Depth Circuits
 RANDOMNESS AND COMPUTATION
, 1989
"... We give improved lower bounds for the size of small depth circuits computing several functions. In particular we prove almost optimal lower bounds for the size of parity circuits. Further we show that there are functions computable in polynomial size and depth k but requires exponential size when ..."
Abstract

Cited by 237 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give improved lower bounds for the size of small depth circuits computing several functions. In particular we prove almost optimal lower bounds for the size of parity circuits. Further we show that there are functions computable in polynomial size and depth k but requires exponential size when the depth is restricted to k1. Our main lemma which is of independent interest states that by using a random restriction we can convert an AND of small ORs to an OR of small ANDs and conversely.
The NPcompleteness column: an ongoing guide
 Journal of Algorithms
, 1985
"... This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & Co ..."
Abstract

Cited by 188 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘[G&J]’’; previous columns will be referred to by their dates). A background equivalent to that provided by [G&J] is assumed, and, when appropriate, crossreferences will be given to that book and the list of problems (NPcomplete and harder) presented there. Readers who have results they would like mentioned (NPhardness, PSPACEhardness, polynomialtimesolvability, etc.) or open problems they would like publicized, should
Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques
 Journal of the ACM
, 1996
"... The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, a connection is shown between approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph and multiprover interactive proofs. Second, an efficient multiprover interactive proof for NP languages is constructed, where the verifier uses very few random b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 152 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, a connection is shown between approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph and multiprover interactive proofs. Second, an efficient multiprover interactive proof for NP languages is constructed, where the verifier uses very few random bits and communication bits. Last, the connection between cliques and efficient multiprover interactive proofs, is shown to yield hardness results on the complexity of approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph. Of independent interest is our proof of correctness for the multilinearity test of functions. 1
Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane Proofs and Monotone Computations
, 1997
"... We prove an exponential lower bound on the length of cutting plane proofs. The proof uses an extension of a lower bound for monotone circuits to circuits which compute with real numbers and use nondecreasing functions as gates. The latter result is of independent interest, since, in particular, i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 135 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove an exponential lower bound on the length of cutting plane proofs. The proof uses an extension of a lower bound for monotone circuits to circuits which compute with real numbers and use nondecreasing functions as gates. The latter result is of independent interest, since, in particular, it implies an exponential lower bound for some arithmetic circuits.
On the power of smalldepth threshold circuits
 Proceedings 31st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
, 1990
"... Abstract. Weinvestigate the power of threshold circuits of small depth. In particular, we give functions that require exponential size unweighted threshold circuits of depth 3 when we restrict the bottom fanin. We also prove that there are monotone functions fk that can be computed in depth k and li ..."
Abstract

Cited by 103 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Weinvestigate the power of threshold circuits of small depth. In particular, we give functions that require exponential size unweighted threshold circuits of depth 3 when we restrict the bottom fanin. We also prove that there are monotone functions fk that can be computed in depth k and linear size ^ � _circuits but require exponential size to compute by a depth k; 1 monotone weighted threshold circuit. Key words. Circuit complexity, monotone circuits, threshold circuits, lower bounds Subject classi cations. 68Q15, 68Q99 1.
Interpolation Theorems, Lower Bounds for Proof Systems, and Independence Results for Bounded Arithmetic
"... A proof of the (propositional) Craig interpolation theorem for cutfree sequent calculus yields that a sequent with a cutfree proof (or with a proof with cutformulas of restricted form; in particular, with only analytic cuts) with k inferences has an interpolant whose circuitsize is at most k. We ..."
Abstract

Cited by 86 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A proof of the (propositional) Craig interpolation theorem for cutfree sequent calculus yields that a sequent with a cutfree proof (or with a proof with cutformulas of restricted form; in particular, with only analytic cuts) with k inferences has an interpolant whose circuitsize is at most k. We give a new proof of the interpolation theorem based on a communication complexity approach which allows a similar estimate for a larger class of proofs. We derive from it several corollaries: 1. Feasible interpolation theorems for the following proof systems: (a) resolution. (b) a subsystem of LK corresponding to the bounded arithmetic theory S 2 2 (ff). (c) linear equational calculus. (d) cutting planes. 2. New proofs of the exponential lower bounds (for new formulas) (a) for resolution ([15]). (b) for the cutting planes proof system with coefficients written in unary ([4]). 3. An alternative proof of the independence result of [43] concerning the provability of circuitsize lower bounds ...
Finding a large hidden clique in a random graph
, 1998
"... ABSTRACT: We consider the following probabilistic model of a graph on n labeled vertices. First choose a random graph Gn,1�2 Ž., and then choose randomly a subset Q of vertices of size k and force it to be a clique by joining every pair of vertices of Q by an edge. The problem is to give a polynomia ..."
Abstract

Cited by 83 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ABSTRACT: We consider the following probabilistic model of a graph on n labeled vertices. First choose a random graph Gn,1�2 Ž., and then choose randomly a subset Q of vertices of size k and force it to be a clique by joining every pair of vertices of Q by an edge. The problem is to give a polynomial time algorithm for finding this hidden clique almost surely for various values of k. This question was posed independently, in various variants, by Jerrum and by Kucera. In this paper we present an efficient algorithm for all k�cn0.5 ˇ, for
Lower Bounds for the Size of Circuits of Bounded Depth in Basis
, 1986
"... this paper, we consider circuits of bounded depth in the basis f; \Phig. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, we consider circuits of bounded depth in the basis f; \Phig.
Lectures on Proof Theory
 Intuitionistic Propositional Proofs. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 109:49 – 64
, 1996
"... proof systems ffl Extended Frege (eF) and substitution Frege (sF) systems ffl Tautologies based on the PigeonHole Principle (PHP) ffl Bestknown lower bounds, including a survey of the state of the art for bounds on proof lengths in various restricted fragments of Frege systems For all of this w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 78 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
proof systems ffl Extended Frege (eF) and substitution Frege (sF) systems ffl Tautologies based on the PigeonHole Principle (PHP) ffl Bestknown lower bounds, including a survey of the state of the art for bounds on proof lengths in various restricted fragments of Frege systems For all of this work, we will use propositional formulas, which are built up out of the following: ffl Variables: p 1 ; p 2 ; p 3 ; : : :; or informally, p; q; r; : : : ffl Logical connectives: :, , , !, $, \Phi ,: : : . We will talk about systems with subsets of these connectives, and more abstractly, of systems with finite sets of connectives of any arities. ffl Parentheses! (, ). ffl Propositional formulas: Typified by: p 1 , (:p 1 ), (p 1 ! (p 2 p 3 )). This uses "fullyparenthesized" syntax. We will often omit parentheses and rely on the usual rules of precedence: : binds tighter than f ; g, which bind tighter than !, which binds tighter than $. Exclusiveor \Phi is not assigned a precedence....