Advertisement

A comparison of two lower bound methods for communication complexity

Extended abstract
  • Martin Dietzfelbinger
  • Juraj Hromkovič
  • Georg Schnitger
Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 841)

Abstract

The methods “Rank” and “Fooling Set” for proving lower bounds on the deterministic communication complexity of Boolean functions are compared. The main results are as follows.
  1. (i)

    The Rank method provides the lower bound n on communication complexity for almost all Boolean functions of 2n variables, whereas the Fooling Set method provides only the lower bound d(n) ≤ log2n + log2 10. A specific sequence of Boolean functions {f2n} n=1 of 2n variables, is constructed, such that the Rank method provides exponentially higher lower bounds for f2n than the Fooling Set method.

     
  2. (ii)

    A specific sequence of Boolean functions {f2n} n=1 is constructed such that the Fooling Set method provides a lower bound of n for h2n, whereas the Rank method provides only (log2 3)/2 · n ≈ 0.79 · n as a lower bound.

     
  3. (iii)

    It is proved that lower bounds obtained by the Fooling Set method are better by at most a factor of two compared with lower bounds obtained by the Rank method.

     

These three results together solve the last problem about the comparison of lower bound methods on communication complexity left open in (Aho,A.V., Ullman, J.D., Yannakakis, M., On notions of information transfer in VLSI circuits, in: Proc. 15th ACM STOC 1983, pp. 133–139). Finally, it is shown that an extension of the Fooling Set method provides lower bounds which are tight (up to a polynomial) for all Boolean functions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ab78]
    Abelson, H., Lower Bounds on Information Transfer in Distributed Computations, Proc. 19tfh IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, 1978, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
  2. [AUY83]
    Aho, A.V., Ullman, J.D., Yannakakis, M., On notions of informations transfer in VLSI circuits. Proc. 15th ACM STOC, 1983, pp. 133–139.Google Scholar
  3. [Bo86]
    Bollobas, B., Combinatorics: Set Systems, Hypergraphs, Families of Vectors and Combinatorial Probability, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
  4. [Hü93]
    Hühne, M.: personal communication.Google Scholar
  5. [Ko65]
    Komlós, J.: On the determinant of (0,1)-matrices, Studia. Sci. Math Hungar. 2, 7–21.Google Scholar
  6. [Ko68]
    Komlós, J.: On the determinant of random matrices. Studia. Sci. Math. Hungar. 3, 387–399.Google Scholar
  7. [Le90]
    Lengauer, Th.: VLSI Theory, In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. A, Algorithms and Complexity (Jan van Leeuwen, Ed.), Elsevier, 1990 pp. 835–868.Google Scholar
  8. [Lo75]
    Lovász, L.: On the ratio of optimal integral and fractional cover. Discrete Mathematic 13(1975), 384–390.Google Scholar
  9. [Lo89]
    Lovász, L., Communication Complexity: A Survey, Paths, Flows, and VLSI-Layout (B.Korte et al. Eds.), Springer-Verlag 1990, pp. 235–265.Google Scholar
  10. [MS82]
    Mehlhorn, K. and Schmidt, E., Las Vegas is better than determinism in VLSI and distributed computing. Proc. 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, San Francisco, 1982, pp. 330–337.Google Scholar
  11. [OG88]
    Orlitsky, A., El Gamal, A.: Communication Complexity, In: Complexity in Information Theory (Yaser S. Abu-Mustafa, Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York 1988, 16–61.Google Scholar
  12. [Ya79]
    Yao, A.C., Some complexity questions related to distributive computing, 11th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1979, pp. 209–213.Google Scholar
  13. [Ya81]
    Yao, A.C., The entropic limitations on VLSI computations, 13th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1981, pp. 308–311.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Dietzfelbinger
    • 1
  • Juraj Hromkovič
    • 2
  • Georg Schnitger
    • 2
  1. 1.Fachbereich Informatik, Lehrstuhl IIUniversität DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Fachbereich Mathematik und InformatikUniversität PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations