Tradeoffs between Nondeterminism and Complexity for Communication Protocols and Branching Programs

Extended Abstract
  • Juraj Hromkovič
  • Martin Sauerhoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1770)

Abstract

In this paper, lower bound and tradeoff results relating the computational power of determinism, nondeterminism, and randomness for communication protocols and branching programs are presented. The main results can be divided into the following three groups.
  1. (i)

    One of the few major open problems concerning nondeterministic communication complexity is to prove an asymptotically exact tradeoff between complexity and the number of available advice bits. This problem is solved here for the case of one-way communication.

     
  2. (ii)

    Multipartition protocols are introduced as a new type of communication protocols using a restricted form of non-obliviousness. In order to be able to study methods for proving lower bounds on multilective and/or non-oblivious computation, these protocols are allowed to either deterministically or nondeterministically choose between different partitions of the input. Here, the first results showing the potential increase of the computational power by non-obliviousness as well as boundaries on this power are derived.

     
  3. (iii)

    The above results (and others) are applied to obtain several new exponential lower bounds for different types of oblivious branching programs, which also yields new insights into the power of nondeterminism and randomness for the considered models. The proofs rely on a general technique described here which allows to prove explicit lower bounds on the size of oblivious branching programs in an easy and transparent way.

     

References

  1. 1.
    H. Abelson. Lower bounds on information transfer in distributed computations. In Proc. of 19th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 151–158, 1978.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Ablayev. Randomization and nondeterminism are incomparable for polynomial ordered binary decision diagrams. In Proc. of 24th Int. Coll. on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), LNCS 1256, 195–202. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Ablayev and M. Karpinski. On the power of randomized branching programs. In Proc. of 23rd Int. Coll. on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), LNCS 1099, 348–356. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Alon and W. Maass. Meanders and their applications in lower bounds arguments. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 37:118–129, 1988.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Babai, N. Nisan, and M. Szegedy. Multiparty protocols, pseudorandom generators for logspace and time-space trade-offs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 45:204–232, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Bollig and I. Wegener. Complexity theoretical results on partitioned (nondeterministic) binary decision diagrams. Theory of Computing Systems, 32:487–503, 1999. (Earlier version in Proc. of 22nd Int. Symp. on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), LNCS 1295, 159–168. Springer, 1997.)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Canetti and O. Goldreich. Bounds on tradeoffs between randomness and communication complexity. Computational Complexity, 3:141–167, 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Ďuriš and Z. Galil. On the power of multiple reads in a chip. Information and Computation, 104:277–287, 1993.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Ďuriš, Z. Galil, and G. Schnitger. Lower bounds on communication complexity. In Proc. of 16th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 81–91, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Ďuriš, J. Hromkovič, J. D. P. Rolim, and G. Schnitger. Las Vegas versus determinism for one-way communication complexity, finite automata, and polynomial-time computations. In Proc. of 14th Ann. Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), LNCS 1200, 117–128. Springer, 1997. To appear in Information and Computation.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Fleischer, H. Jung, and K. Mehlhorn. A communication-randomness tradeoff for two-processor systems. Information and Computation, 116:155–161, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Gergov. Time-space tradeoffs for integer multiplication on various types of input oblivious sequential machines. Information Processing Letters, 51:265–269, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Hromkovič. Communication Complexity and Parallel Computing. EATCS Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Hromkovič and G. Schnitger. Nondeterministic communication with a limited number of advice bits. In Proc. of 28th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 551–560, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Hromkovič. Communication complexity and lower bounds on multilective computations. Theoretical Informatics and Applications (RAIRO), 33:193–212, 1999.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Jain, J. Bitner, J. A. Abraham, and D. S. Fussell. Functional partitioning for verification and related problems. In T. Knight and J. Savage, editors, Advanced Research in VLSI and Parallel Systems: Proceedings of the 1992 Brown/MIT Conference, 210–226, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. P. Jukna. Lower bounds on communication complexity. Mathematical Logic and Its Applications, 5:22–30, 1987.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Krause. Lower bounds for depth-restricted branching programs. Information and Computation, 91(1):1–14, Mar. 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Krause and S. Waack. On oblivious branching programs of linear length. Information and Computation, 94:232–249, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Kriegel and S. Waack. Lower bounds on the complexity of real-time branching programs. Theoretical Informatics and Applications (RAIRO), 22:447–459, 1988.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Kushilevitz and N. Nisan. Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Mehlhorn and E. Schmidt. Las-Vegas is better than determinism in VLSI and distributed computing. In Proc. of 14th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 330–337, 1982.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Newman. Private vs. common random bits in communication complexity. Information Processing Letters, 39:67–71, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Sauerhoff. Complexity Theoretical Results for Randomized Branching Programs. PhD thesis, Univ. of Dortmund. Shaker, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Sauerhoff. On the size of randomized OBDDs and read-once branching programs for k-stable functions. In Proc. of 16th Ann. Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), LNCS 1563, 488–499. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Sauerhoff. Computing with restricted nondeterminism: The dependence of the OBDD size on the number of nondeterministic variables. To appear in Proc. of FST & TCS.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    I. Wegener. The Complexity of Boolean Functions. Wiley-Teubner, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    I. Wegener. Branching Programs and Binary Decision Diagrams—Theory and Applications. Monographs on Discrete and Applied Mathematics. SIAM, 1999. To appear.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. C. Yao. Some complexity questions related to distributive computing. In Proc. of 11th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 209–213, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juraj Hromkovič
    • 1
  • Martin Sauerhoff
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science I (Algorithms and Complexity)Technological University of AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, LS 2University of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations