Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1604.07200

Characterization and Lower Bounds for Branching Program Size using Projective Dimension

Abstract

We study projective dimension, a graph parameter (denoted by pd$(G)$ for a graph $G$), introduced by (Pudlák, Rödl 1992), who showed that proving lower bounds for pd$(G_f)$ for bipartite graphs $G_f$ associated with a Boolean function $f$ imply size lower bounds for branching programs computing $f$. Despite several attempts (Pudlák, Rödl 1992 ; Babai, Rónyai, Ganapathy 2000), proving super-linear lower bounds for projective dimension of explicit families of graphs has remained elusive. We show that there exist a Boolean function $f$ (on $n$ bits) for which the gap between the projective dimension and size of the optimal branching program computing $f$ (denoted by bpsize$(f)$), is $2^{Ω(n)}$. Motivated by the argument in (Pudlák, Rödl 1992), we define two variants of projective dimension - projective dimension with intersection dimension 1 (denoted by upd$(G)$) and bitwise decomposable projective dimension (denoted by bitpdim$(G)$). As our main result, we show that there is an explicit family of graphs on $N = 2^n$ vertices such that the projective dimension is $O(\sqrt{n})$, the projective dimension with intersection dimension $1$ is $Ω(n)$ and the bitwise decomposable projective dimension is $Ω(\frac{n^{1.5}}{\log n})$. We also show that there exist a Boolean function $f$ (on $n$ bits) for which the gap between upd$(G_f)$ and bpsize$(f)$ is $2^{Ω(n)}$. In contrast, we also show that the bitwise decomposable projective dimension characterizes size of the branching program up to a polynomial factor. That is, there exists a constant $c>0$ and for any function $f$, $\textrm{bitpdim}(G_f)/6 \le \textrm{bpsize}(f) \le (\textrm{bitpdim}(G_f))^c$. We also study two other variants of projective dimension and show that they are exactly equal to well-studied graph parameters - bipartite clique cover number and bipartite partition number respectively.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Krishnamoorthy Dinesh, Sajin Koroth, Jayalal Sarma. 2017-02-09. Characterization and Lower Bounds for Branching Program Size using Projective Dimension. https://doi.org/10.1145/3305274

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC