ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
On the complexity of communication complexity
Full text PdfPdf (473 KB)
Source
Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing archive
Proceedings of the 41st annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing table of contents
Bethesda, MD, USA
SESSION: Complexity II table of contents
Pages 465-474  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-506-2
Authors
Eyal Kushilevitz  Technion, Haifa, Israel
Enav Weinreb  Technion, Haifa, Israel
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 20,   Downloads (12 Months): 111,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1536414.1536479
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We consider the following question: given a two-argument boolean function f, represented as an N x N binary matrix, how hard is it to determine the (deterministic) communication complexity of f? We address two aspects of this question. On the computational side, we prove that, under appropriate cryptographic assumptions (such as the intractability of factoring), the deterministic communication complexity of f is hard to approximate to within some constant. Under stronger (yet arguably reasonable) assumptions, we obtain even stronger hardness results that match the best known approximation. On the analytic side, we present a family of (two-argument) functions for which determining the deterministic communication complexity (or even obtaining non-trivial lower bounds on it) implies proving circuit lower bounds for some related functions. Such connections between circuit complexity and communication complexity were known before (Karchmer &#; Wigderson, 1988) only in the more involved context of relations (search problems) but not in the context of functions (decision problems). This result, in particular, may explain the difficulty of analyzing the communication complexity of certain functions such as the "clique vs. independent-set" family of functions, introduced by Yannakakis (1988).


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
3
 
4
5
 
6
S. Jukna. On graph complexity. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 2004.
7
8
 
9
H. Klauck. Rectangle size bounds and threshold covers in communication complexity. In IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 118--134, 2003.
 
10
E. Kushilevitz, N. Linial, and R. Ostrovsky. The linear-array conjecture in communication complexity is false. Combinatorica, 19(2):241--254, 1999.
 
11
 
12
13
14
15
 
16
N. Nisan and A. Wigderson. On rank vs. communication complexity. Combinatorica, 15(4):557--565, 1995.
 
17
J. Orlin. Contentment in graph theory: Covering graphs with cliques. In Nederl. Akad. Wet., Proc., pages 406--424, 1977.
 
18
 
19
R. Raz and B. Spieker. On the "log rank"-conjecture in communication complexity. Combinatorica, 15(4):567--588, 1995.
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
C. E. Shannon. The synthesis of two terminal switching circuits. Bell System Technical Journal, 28:59--98, 1949.
 
24
M. Yannakakis. Expressing combinatorial optimization problems by linear programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 43(3):441--466, 1991.
25

Collaborative Colleagues:
Eyal Kushilevitz: colleagues
Enav Weinreb: colleagues