, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 265–311 | Cite as

Composition limits and separating examples for some boolean function complexity measures

Original Paper


Block sensitivity (bs(f)), certificate complexity (C(f)) and fractional certificate complexity (C*(f)) are three fundamental combinatorial measures of complexity of a boolean function f. It has long been known that bs(f) ≤ C*(f) ≤ C(f) = O(bs(f)2). We provide an infinite family of examples for which C(f) grows quadratically in C*(f) (and also bs(f)) giving optimal separations between these measures. Previously the biggest separation known was \(C(f) = C*(f)^{\log _{4,5} 5}\). We also give a family of examples for which C*(f)= Ω (bs(f)3/2).

These examples are obtained by composing boolean functions in various ways. Here the composition fog of f with g is obtained by substituting for each variable of f a copy of g on disjoint sets of variables. To construct and analyse these examples we systematically investigate the behaviour under function composition of these measures and also the sensitivity measure s(f). The measures s(f), C(f) and C*(f) behave nicely under composition: they are submultiplicative (where measure m is submultiplicative if m(fog) ≤ m(f)m(g)) with equality holding under some fairly general conditions. The measure bs(f) is qualitatively different: it is not submultiplicative. This qualitative difference was not noticed in the previous literature and we correct some errors that appeared in previous papers. We define the composition limit of a measure m at function f, mlim(f) to be the limit as k grows of m(f(k))1/k, where f(k) is the iterated composition of f with itself k-times. For any function f we show that bslim(f) = (C*)lim(f) and characterize slim(f); (C*)lim(f), and Clim(f) in terms of the largest eigenvalue of a certain set of 2×2 matrices associated with f.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    S. Aaronson: Quantum certificate complexity, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74 (2008), 313–322.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Buhrman and R. de Wolf: Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey, Theor. Comput. Sci. 288 (2002), 21–43.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Bublitz, U. Schurfeld and I. Wegener: Properties of complexity measures for PRAMs and WRAMs, Theor. Comput. Sci. 48 (1986), 53–73.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Hatami, R. Kulkarni and D. Pankratov: Variations on the Sensitivity Con-jecture, Number 4 in Graduate Surveys, Theory of Computing Library, 2011.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. D. Meyer: Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Midrijanis: Exact quantum query complexity for total boolean functions, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0403168, 2004.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    N. Nisan: CREW PRAMs and Decision Trees, SIAM J. Comput. 20 (1991), 999–1007.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. R. Scheinerman, D. H. Ullman and C. Berge: Fractional Graph Theory: A Rational Approach to the Theory of Graphs, Dover Books on Mathematics Series, Dover Publications, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Tal: Properties and applications of boolean function composition, Electronic Col-loquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 19 2012.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Tal: Properties and applications of boolean function composition, in: ITCS (2013), 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© János Bolyai Mathematical Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin Gilmer
    • 1
  • Michael Saks
    • 1
  • Srikanth Srinivasan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsIIT BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations