Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1810.03811

On the Relationship between Energy Complexity and other Boolean Function Measures

Xiaoming Sun·Yuan Sun·Kewen Wu·Zhiyu Xia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this work we investigate into energy complexity, a Boolean function measure related to circuit complexity. Given a circuit $\mathcal{C}$ over the standard basis $\{\vee_2,\wedge_2,\neg\}$, the energy complexity of $\mathcal{C}$, denoted by $\mathrm{EC}(\mathcal{C})$, is the maximum number of its activated inner gates over all inputs. The energy complexity of a Boolean function $f$, denoted by $\mathrm{EC}(f)$, is the minimum of $\mathrm{EC}(\mathcal{C})$ over all circuits $\mathcal{C}$ computing $f$. This concept has attracted lots of attention in literature. Recently, Dinesh, Otiv, and Sarma [COCOON'18] gave $\mathrm{EC}(f)$ an upper bound in terms of the decision tree complexity, $\mathrm{EC}(f)=O(\mathrm{D}(f)^3)$. They also showed that $\mathrm{EC}(f)\leq 3n-1$, where $n$ is the input size. Recall that the minimum size of circuit to compute $f$ could be as large as $2^n/n$. We improve their upper bounds by showing that $\mathrm{EC}(f)\leq\min\{\frac12\mathrm{D}(f)^2+O(\mathrm{D}(f)),n+2\mathrm{D}(f)-2\}$. For the lower bound, Dinesh, Otiv, and Sarma defined positive sensitivity, a complexity measure denoted by $\mathrm{psens}(f)$, and showed that $\mathrm{EC}(f)\ge\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{psens}(f)$. They asked whether $\mathrm{EC}(f)$ can also be lower bounded by a polynomial of $\mathrm{D}(f)$. In this paper we affirm it by proving $\mathrm{EC}(f)=Ω(\sqrt{\mathrm{D}(f)})$. For non-degenerated functions with input size $n$, we give another lower bound $\mathrm{EC}(f)=Ω(\log{n})$. All these three lower bounds are incomparable to each other. Besides, we also examine the energy complexity of $\mathtt{OR}$ functions and $\mathtt{ADDRESS}$ functions, which implies the tightness of our two lower bounds respectively. In addition, the former one answers another open question asking for a non-trivial lower bounds for the energy complexity of $\mathtt{OR}$ functions.

Explore related subjects

cs.CCcs.DMmath.CO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xiaoming Sun, Yuan Sun, Kewen Wu, Zhiyu Xia. 2019-04-26. On the Relationship between Energy Complexity and other Boolean Function Measures. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03811

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Formalizing PARITY Circuit Lower Bounds in Lean

We formalize Hastad's PARITY lower bound in Lean using the switching lemma. For every fixed d >= 2, formulas and DAG circuits of computation depth at most d computing PARITY on n inputs require size exp(Omega_d(n^(1/(d-1)))) for all sufficiently large n. This matches the classical upper bound up to constants in the exponent and implies that PARITY is not in nonuniform AC0. We also construct a polynomial-size, logarithmic-depth bounded-fan-in formula family for PARITY, providing a witness to NC1 is not a subset of AC0 for the formalized models. The Lean source code is available at https://github.com/formalcs/circuit-complexity and is checked with Lean 4.33.1 and mathlib 4.33.1.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Constant-Coin Complete-Information Debates for $\mathsf{P}$ with Arbitrarily Small Strong Error

We study complete-information debate systems in which a probabilistic finite-state verifier reads the alternating messages of a prover and a refuter. Demirci, Say, and Yakaryılmaz showed that every language in $\mathsf{P}$ has such debates checkable with a constant number of random bits and arbitrarily small weak error. Their strong-error construction, which also counts nontermination as failure, did not permit arbitrary error reduction. We close this gap: for every $L\in\mathsf{P}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a constant-space verifier using a constant number of private coin tosses that has perfect completeness and strong error at most $\varepsilon$. The verifier simulates a polynomial-time alternating multihead finite automaton, privately spot-checking one of its input heads. The key observation is that, on a nonmember, the refuter may concede any round in which the prover first misreports a head reading. This ensures termination against every prover when the refuter follows the specified strategy, and permits strong-error reduction by repetition.

cs.CC↗