In Direct Sum problems |8|, one tries to show that for a given computational model, the complexity of computing a collection F = {f1(x1),hellipf1(x1)} of finite functions on independent inputs is approximately the sum of their individual complexities. In this paper, by contrast, we study the diversity of ways in which the joint computational complexity can behave when all the fiare evaluated on a common input. We focus on the deterministic decision tree model, with depth as the complexity measure; in this model we prove a result to the effect that the 'obvious' constraints on joint computational complexity are essentially the only ones. The proof uses an intriguing new type of cryptographic data structure called a `mystery bin' which we construct using a small polynomial separation between deterministic and unambiguous query complexity shown by Savicky. We also pose a variant of the Direct Sum Conjecture of |8| which, if proved for a single family of functions, could yield an analogous result for models such as the communication model.
In Direct Sum problems |8|, one tries to show that for a given computational model, the complexity of computing a collection F = {f1(x1),hellipf1(x1)} of finite functions on independent inputs is approximately the sum of their individual complexities. In this paper, by contrast, we study the diversity of ways in which the joint computational complexity can behave when all the fiare evaluated on a common input. We focus on the deterministic decision tree model, with depth as the complexity measure; in this model we prove a result to the effect that the 'obvious' constraints on joint computational complexity are essentially the only ones. The proof uses an intriguing new type of cryptographic data structure called a `mystery bin' which we construct using a small polynomial separation between deterministic and unambiguous query complexity shown by Savicky. We also pose a variant of the Direct Sum Conjecture of |8| which, if proved for a single family of functions, could yield an analogous result for models such as the communication model.
Joint computation is the ubiquitous scenario in which a computer is presented with not one, but many computational tasks to perform. A fundamental question arises: when can we cleverly combine computations, to perform them with greater efficiency or reliability than by tackling them separately? This thesis investigates the power and, especially, the limits of efficient joint computation, in several computational models: query algorithms, circuits, and Turing machines. We significantly improve and extend past results on limits to efficient joint computation for multiple independent tasks; identify barriers to progress towards better circuit lower bounds for multiple-output operators; and begin an original line of inquiry into the complexity of joint computation. In more detail, we make contributions in the following areas:
Improved product theorems for randomized query complexity: The direct product problem seeks to understand how the difficulty of computing a function on each of k independent inputs scales with k. We prove the following product theorem (DPT) for query complexity: if every T-query algorithm has success probability at most 1 – e in computing the Boolean function f on input distribution μ, then for α ≤ 1, every αeTk-query algorithm has success probability at most (2αe(1 – e))k in computing the k-fold product f ⊗k correctly on k independent inputs from μ. In light of examples due to Shaltiel, this statement gives an essentially optimal tradeoff between the query bound and the error probability. Using this DPT, we show that for an absolute constant α > 0, the worst-case success probability of any αR 2(f)k-query randomized algorithm for f⊗k falls exponentially with k. The best previous statement of this type, due to Klauck, Spalek, and de Wolf, required a query bound of O( bs(f)k).
Our proof technique involves defining and analyzing a collection of martingales associated with an algorithm attempting to solve f ⊗k. Our method is quite general and yields a new XOR lemma and threshold DPT for the query model, as well as DPTs for the query complexity of learning tasks, search problems, and tasks involving interaction with dynamic entities. We also give a version of our DPT in which decision tree size is the resource of interest.
Joint complexity in the Decision Tree Model: We study the diversity of possible behaviors of the joint computational complexity of a collection f1, …, fk of Boolean functions over a shared input. We focus on the deterministic decision tree model, with depth as the complexity measure; in this model, we prove a result to the effect that the obvious constraints on joint computational complexity are essentially the only ones.
The proof uses an intriguing new type of cryptographic data structure called a mystery bin, which we construct using a polynomial separation between deterministic and unambiguous query complexity shown by Savický. We also pose a conjecture in the communication model which, if proved, would extend our result to that model. (Copies available exclusively from MIT Libraries, Rm. 14-0551, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307. Ph. 617-253-5668; Fax 617-253-1690.) (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
Direct-sum questions in (two-party) communication complexity ask whether two parties, Alice and Bob, can compute the value of a function f on l inputs (x_1,y_1),...,(x_l,y_l) more efficiently than by applying the best protocol for f, independently on each input (x_i,y_i). In spite of significant efforts to understand these questions (under various communication-complexity measures), the general question is still far from being well understood. In this paper, we offer a multiparty view of these questions: The direct-sum setting is just a two-player system with Alice having inputs x_1,...,x_l, Bob having inputs y_1,...,y_l and the desired output is f(x_1,y_1),...,f(x_l,y_l). The naive solution of solving the l problems independently, is modeled by a network with l (disconnected) pairs of players Alice i and Bob i, with inputs x_i,y_i respectively, and communication only within each pair. Then, we consider an intermediate ("star") model, where there is one Alice having l inputs x_1,...,x_l and l players Bob_1,...,Bob_l holding y_1,...,y_l, respectively (in fact, we consider few variants of this intermediate model, depending on whether communication between each Bob i and Alice is point-to-point or whether we allow broadcast). Our goal is to get a better understanding of the relation between the two extreme models (i.e., of the two-party direct-sum question). If, for instance, Alice and Bob can do better (for some complexity measure) than solving the l problems independently, we wish to understand what intermediate model already allows to do so (hereby understanding the "source" of such savings). If, on the other hand, we wish to prove that there is no better solution than solving the l problems independently, then our approach gives a way of breaking the task of proving such a statement into few (hopefully, easier) steps. We present several results of both types. Namely, for certain complexity measures, communication problems f and certain pairs of models, we can show gaps between the complexity of solving f on l instances in the two models in question; while, for certain other complexity measures and pairs of models, we can show that such gaps do not exist (for any communication problem f). For example, we prove that if only point-to-point communication is allowed in the intermediate "star" model, then significant savings are impossible in the public-coin randomized setting. On the other hand, in the private-coin randomized setting, if Alice is allowed to broadcast messages to all Bobs in the "star" network, then some savings are possible. While this approach does not lead yet to new results on the original two-party direct-sum question, we believe that our work gives new insights on the already-known direct-sum results, and may potentially lead to more such results in the future.
Quantum query complexity enjoys a variety of pleasing joint computation properties: for example, a composition theorem asserting Q(f∘g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g)) for all Boolean functions f and g; a direct sum theorem asserting that computing k copies of a function (or search problem) costs Ω(k) times as much as the cost of computing one copy; and a direct product theorem asserting that for Boolean functions, even succeeding at the direct sum problem with exponentially small probability still requires Ω(k) times the cost of computing one copy to bounded error.
However, all of these results are strictly for worst-case quantum query complexity. For example, if we have a fixed distribution μ over inputs, the direct sum theorem says nothing about the quantum query complexity of computing k copies of f when the input comes from the product distribution μk instead of being worst-case. (Note that while a standard Yao-type minimax theorem guarantees a hard distribution for the direct sum problem, there's no guarantee that this hard distribution is a product distribution.) A similar problem occurs for the direct product theorem and the composition theorem: none of these results respect distributions.
In this work, we give distributional joint computation lower bounds for the composition, direct sum, and direct product problems. Along the way, we introduce some new tools for handling quantum query lower bounds, including (a) a new ``multiplicative'' variant of the γ2 norm (which we use in place of the multiplicative adversary method for proving the direct product theorem), and (b) a new ``Shaltiel-free'' measure of quantum query complexity, which we show characterizes the composition behavior of distributional quantum query complexity and satisfies pleasing properties.
We show that there exists a Boolean function F which gives the following separations among deterministic query complexity (D(F)), randomized zero error query complexity (R0(F)) and randomized one-sided error query complexity (R1(F)): R1(F) = Õ( √ D(F)) and R0(F) = Õ(D(F))3/4. This refutes the conjecture made by Saks and Wigderson that for any Boolean function f, R0(f) = Ω(D(f))0.753.. This also shows widest separation between R1(f) and D(f) for any Boolean function. The function F was defined by Göös, Pitassi and Watson who studied it for showing a separation between deterministic decision tree complexity and unambiguous nondeterministic decision tree complexity. Independently of us, Ambainis et al proved that different variants of the function F certify optimal (quadratic) separation between D(f) and R0(f), and polynomial separation between R0(f) and R1(f). Viewed as separation results, our results are subsumed by those of Ambainis et al. However, while the functions considered in the work of Ambainis et al are different variants of F, in this work we show that the original function F itself is sufficient to refute the Saks-Wigderson conjecture and obtain widest possible separation between the deterministic and one-sided error randomized query complexity.
In communication complexity the input of a function f:X×Y→Z is distributed between two players Alice and Bob. If Alice knows only x∈X and Bob only y∈Y, how much information must Alice and Bob share to be able to elicit the value of f(x,y)? Do we need ℓ more resources to solve ℓ instances of a problem? This question is the direct sum question and has been studied in many computational models. In this paper we focus on the case of 2-party deterministic communication complexity and give a counterexample to the direct sum conjecture in its strongest form. To do so we exhibit a family of functions for which the complexity of solving ℓ instances is less than (1−ε)ℓ times the complexity of solving one instance for some small enough ε>0. We use a customised method in the analysis of our family of total functions, showing that one can force the alternation of rounds between players. This idea allows us to exploit the integrality of the complexity measure to create an increasing gap between the complexity of solving the instances independently with that of solving them together.
We show that there exists a Boolean function F which gives the following separations among deterministic query complexity (D(F)), randomized zero error query complexity (R_0(F)) and randomized one-sided error query complexity (R_1(F)): R_1(F) = ~O(sqrt{D(F)) and R_0(F)=~O(D(F))^3/4. This refutes the conjecture made by Saks and Wigderson that for any Boolean function f, R_0(f)=Omega(D(f))^0.753.. . This also shows widest separation between R_1(f) and D(f) for any Boolean function. The function F was defined by Göös, Pitassi and Watson who studied it for showing a separation between deterministic decision tree complexity and unambiguous non-deterministic decision tree complexity. Independently of us, Ambainis et al proved that different variants of the function F certify optimal (quadratic) separation between D(f) and R_0(f), and polynomial separation between R_0(f) and R_1(f). Viewed as separation results, our results are subsumed by those of Ambainis et al. However, while the functions considered in the work of Ambainis et al are different variants of F, in this work we show that the original function F itself is sufficient to refute the Saks-Wigderson conjecture and obtain widest possible separation between the deterministic and one-sided error randomized query complexity.