toward the krw conjecture
play

Toward the KRW conjecture Cubic Formula Lower Bounds via - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Toward the KRW conjecture Cubic Formula Lower Bounds via Communication Complexity Irit Dinur Or Meir Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture Formulas (de-Morgan) Formulas are circuits with fan-out 1 . Cannot store intermediate results.


  1. Toward the KRW conjecture Cubic Formula Lower Bounds via Communication Complexity Irit Dinur Or Meir Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  2. Formulas (de-Morgan) Formulas are circuits with fan-out 1 . Cannot store intermediate results. The formula complexity L ( f ) is the size of the smallest formula for f . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  3. Formulas Would like: Explicit f with L ( f ) = n ω (1) . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  4. Formulas Would like: Explicit f with L ( f ) = n ω (1) . State-of-the-art: Andreev’s function [A87] has complexity ˜ Ω( n 3 ) [H98]. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  5. Formulas Would like: Explicit f with L ( f ) = n ω (1) . State-of-the-art: Andreev’s function [A87] has complexity ˜ Ω( n 3 ) [H98]. Proof based on shrinkage [S61, IN93, PZ93. H98, T14]. We now have an optimal analysis of shrinkage. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  6. Formulas Would like: Explicit f with L ( f ) = n ω (1) . State-of-the-art: Andreev’s function [A87] has complexity ˜ Ω( n 3 ) [H98]. Proof based on shrinkage [S61, IN93, PZ93. H98, T14]. We now have an optimal analysis of shrinkage. So shrinkage is unlikely to get us any further. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  7. Composition [KRW91]: we need to understand composition. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  8. Composition [KRW91]: we need to understand composition. Let f : { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } , g : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } . The composition f ⋄ g : { 0 , 1 } m × n → { 0 , 1 } is X m n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  9. Composition [KRW91]: we need to understand composition. Let f : { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } , g : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } . The composition f ⋄ g : { 0 , 1 } m × n → { 0 , 1 } is g g X a m .......... g n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  10. Composition [KRW91]: we need to understand composition. Let f : { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } , g : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } . The composition f ⋄ g : { 0 , 1 } m × n → { 0 , 1 } is g g f X a m (f  g)(X) .......... g n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  11. The KRW conjecture f g L (f) g f X m a (f  g)(X) .......... g g ......... L (g) L (g) g ......... X 1 X m n ‘ Clearly, L ( f ⋄ g ) ≤ L ( f ) · L ( g ) . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  12. The KRW conjecture f g L (f) g f X m a (f  g)(X) .......... g g ......... L (g) L (g) g ......... X 1 X m n ‘ Clearly, L ( f ⋄ g ) ≤ L ( f ) · L ( g ) . KRW conjecture*: ∀ f, g : L ( f ⋄ g ) ≈ L ( f ) · L ( g ) . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  13. The KRW conjecture — Prior Work KRW conjecture*: ∀ f, g : L ( f ⋄ g ) ≈ L ( f ) · L ( g ) . Implies super-polynomial formula lower bounds. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  14. The KRW conjecture — Prior Work KRW conjecture*: ∀ f, g : L ( f ⋄ g ) ≈ L ( f ) · L ( g ) . Implies super-polynomial formula lower bounds. [KRW91] defined the universal relation U . Like a function, but simpler. Suggested to prove the conjecture for U ⋄ U . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  15. The KRW conjecture — Prior Work KRW conjecture*: ∀ f, g : L ( f ⋄ g ) ≈ L ( f ) · L ( g ) . Implies super-polynomial formula lower bounds. [KRW91] defined the universal relation U . Like a function, but simpler. Suggested to prove the conjecture for U ⋄ U . Conjecture was proved for U ⋄ U by [EIRS91] Alternative proof by [HW93]. Recently: [GMWW14] proved conjecture for f ⋄ U . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  16. Our results We prove conjecture for f ⋄ g where g is parity: O ( √ m ) ˜ L ( f ⋄ g ) ≥ L ( f ) · L ( g ) / 2 Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  17. Our results We prove conjecture for f ⋄ g where g is parity: O ( √ m ) ˜ L ( f ⋄ g ) ≥ L ( f ) · L ( g ) / 2 Also, we give a structural result: Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  18. Our results We prove conjecture for f ⋄ g where g is parity: O ( √ m ) ˜ L ( f ⋄ g ) ≥ L ( f ) · L ( g ) / 2 Also, we give a structural result: KRW conjecture: naive formula is optimal. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  19. Our results We prove conjecture for f ⋄ g where g is parity: O ( √ m ) ˜ L ( f ⋄ g ) ≥ L ( f ) · L ( g ) / 2 Also, we give a structural result: KRW conjecture: naive formula is optimal. Our result: naive formula is essentially the only optimal formula. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  20. Our results We prove conjecture for f ⋄ g where g is parity: O ( √ m ) ˜ L ( f ⋄ g ) ≥ L ( f ) · L ( g ) / 2 Also, we give a structural result: KRW conjecture: naive formula is optimal. Our result: naive formula is essentially the only optimal formula. Actually, the lower bound for f ⋄ g already follows from [H98]. However, our proof is very different, and seems to be more generalizable for other g ’s. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  21. Our results We prove conjecture for f ⋄ g where g is parity: O ( √ m ) ˜ L ( f ⋄ g ) ≥ L ( f ) · L ( g ) / 2 Also, we give a structural result: KRW conjecture: naive formula is optimal. Our result: naive formula is essentially the only optimal formula. Actually, the lower bound for f ⋄ g already follows from [H98]. However, our proof is very different, and seems to be more generalizable for other g ’s. Also: new proof of the state-of-the-art cubic lower bound of [H98]. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  22. Introduction 1 Background 2 Proof Strategy 3 New tools 4 Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  23. Outline Introduction 1 Background 2 Proof Strategy 3 New tools 4 Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  24. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  25. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . The KW relation KW f is defined as follows: Alice gets x ∈ f − 1 (0) . Bob gets y ∈ f − 1 (1) . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  26. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . The KW relation KW f is defined as follows: Alice gets x ∈ f − 1 (0) . Bob gets y ∈ f − 1 (1) . Clearly, x � = y , so ∃ i s.t. x i � = y i . Want to find such i . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  27. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . The KW relation KW f is defined as follows: Alice gets x ∈ f − 1 (0) . Bob gets y ∈ f − 1 (1) . Clearly, x � = y , so ∃ i s.t. x i � = y i . Want to find such i . Want to talk as little as possible. Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  28. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . The KW relation KW f is defined as follows: Alice gets x ∈ f − 1 (0) . Bob gets y ∈ f − 1 (1) . Clearly, x � = y , so ∃ i s.t. x i � = y i . Want to find such i . Want to talk as little as possible. Only deterministic protocols! Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  29. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . The KW relation KW f is defined as follows: Alice gets x ∈ f − 1 (0) . Bob gets y ∈ f − 1 (1) . Clearly, x � = y , so ∃ i s.t. x i � = y i . Want to find such i . Want to talk as little as possible. Only deterministic protocols! This talk: Assume C ( KW f ) = log L ( f ) . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  30. Karchmer-Wigderson Relations [KW90] Relate L ( f ) to complexity of a communication problem KW f . The KW relation KW f is defined as follows: Alice gets x ∈ f − 1 (0) . Bob gets y ∈ f − 1 (1) . Clearly, x � = y , so ∃ i s.t. x i � = y i . Want to find such i . Want to talk as little as possible. Only deterministic protocols! This talk: Assume C ( KW f ) = log L ( f ) . KRW conjecture: C ( KW f ⋄ g ) ≈ C ( KW f ) + C ( KW g ) . Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  31. KRW and KW Can we use KW relations to attack the KRW conjecture? How does KW f ⋄ g look like? Recall: f ⋄ g maps { 0 , 1 } m × n to { 0 , 1 } . Bob Alice X Y m m n n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  32. KRW and KW Can we use KW relations to attack the KRW conjecture? How does KW f ⋄ g look like? Recall: f ⋄ g maps { 0 , 1 } m × n to { 0 , 1 } . Bob Alice g g g g X Y m a b m .......... .......... g g n n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  33. KRW and KW Can we use KW relations to attack the KRW conjecture? How does KW f ⋄ g look like? Recall: f ⋄ g maps { 0 , 1 } m × n to { 0 , 1 } . Bob Alice g g g g f f X Y m a b m 1 .......... 0 .......... g g n n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

  34. KRW and KW Can we use KW relations to attack the KRW conjecture? How does KW f ⋄ g look like? Recall: f ⋄ g maps { 0 , 1 } m × n to { 0 , 1 } . Bob Alice g g g g f f X Y m a b m 1 .......... 0 .......... g g n n Irit Dinur, Or Meir Toward the KRW conjecture

Recommend


More recommend