Towards Better Separation between Deterministic and Randomized Query Complexity

Authors Sagnik Mukhopadhyay, Swagato Sanyal

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 459 kB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Sagnik Mukhopadhyay
Swagato Sanyal

Cite AsGet BibTex

Sagnik Mukhopadhyay and Swagato Sanyal. Towards Better Separation between Deterministic and Randomized Query Complexity. In 35th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2015). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 45, pp. 206-220, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2015)


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.
  • Deterministic Decision Tree
  • Randomized Decision Tree
  • Query Complexity
  • Models of Computation.


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Scott Aaronson. A query complexity breakthrough. shtetl-optimized. Google Scholar
  2. Andris Ambainis, Kaspars Balodis, Aleksandrs Belovs, Troy Lee, Miklos Santha, and Juris Smotrovs. Separations in query complexity based on pointer functions. CoRR, abs/1506.04719, 2015. Google Scholar
  3. Manuel Blum and Russell Impagliazzo. Generic oracles and oracle classes (extended abstract). In 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Los Angeles, California, USA, 27-29 October 1987, pages 118-126, 1987. Google Scholar
  4. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Deterministic communication vs. partition number. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 22:50, 2015. Google Scholar
  5. Juris Hartmanis and Lane A. Hemachandra. One-way functions, robustness, and the non-isomorphism of np-complete sets. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA, June 16-19, 1987, 1987. Google Scholar
  6. Noam Nisan. CREW prams and decision trees. SIAM J. Comput., 20(6):999-1007, 1991. Google Scholar
  7. Ronald L. Rivest and Jean Vuillemin. On recognizing graph properties from adjacency matrices. Theor. Comput. Sci., 3(3):371-384, 1976. Google Scholar
  8. Michael E. Saks and Avi Wigderson. Probabilistic boolean decision trees and the complexity of evaluating game trees. In 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Toronto, Canada, 27-29 October 1986, pages 29-38, 1986. Google Scholar
  9. Miklos Santha. On the monte carlo boolean decision tree complexity of read-once formulae. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, June 30 - July 3, 1991, pages 180-187, 1991. Google Scholar
  10. Marc Snir. Lower bounds on probabilistic linear decision trees. Theor. Comput. Sci., 38:69-82, 1985. Google Scholar
  11. Gábor Tardos. Query complexity, or why is it difficult to seperate NP ^a cap co NP^a from P^a by random oracles a? Combinatorica, 9(4):385-392, 1989. Google Scholar