Document Open Access Logo

Decision Tree Complexity Versus Block Sensitivity and Degree

Authors Rahul Chugh, Supartha Podder, Swagato Sanyal

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2023.27.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.85 MB
  • 23 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Rahul Chugh
  • Citadel Securities, London, UK
Supartha Podder
  • Stony Brook University, NY, USA
Swagato Sanyal
  • IIT Kharagpur, India

Funding

  • Chugh, Rahul: This work was done when the author was affiliated to IIT Kharagpur. Parts of this work have appeared in the B.Tech project report of the author submitted to the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Kharagpur.
  • Podder, Supartha: Supported by US Department of Energy (grant no DE-SC0023179) and US National Science Foundation (award no 1954311).
  • Sanyal, Swagato: Supported by an ISIRD grant by Sponsored Research and Industrial Consultancy, IIT Kharagpur.

Acknowledgements

We thank anonymous referees for many helpful feedback.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Rahul Chugh, Supartha Podder, and Swagato Sanyal. Decision Tree Complexity Versus Block Sensitivity and Degree. In 43rd IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 284, pp. 27:1-27:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSTTCS.2023.27

Abstract

Relations between the decision tree complexity and various other complexity measures of Boolean functions is a thriving topic of research in computational complexity. While decision tree complexity is long known to be polynomially related with many other measures, the optimal exponents of many of these relations are not known. It is known that decision tree complexity is bounded above by the cube of block sensitivity, and the cube of polynomial degree. However, the widest separation between decision tree complexity and each of block sensitivity and degree that is witnessed by known Boolean functions is quadratic. Proving quadratic relations between these measures would resolve several open questions in decision tree complexity. For example, it will imply a tight relation between decision tree complexity and square of randomized decision tree complexity and a tight relation between zero-error randomized decision tree complexity and square of fractional block sensitivity, resolving an open question raised by Aaronson [Aaronson, 2008]. In this work, we investigate the tightness of the existing cubic upper bounds. We improve the cubic upper bounds for many interesting classes of Boolean functions. We show that for graph properties and for functions with a constant number of alternations, the cubic upper bounds can be improved to quadratic. We define a class of Boolean functions, which we call the zebra functions, that comprises Boolean functions where each monotone path from 0ⁿ to 1ⁿ has an equal number of alternations. This class contains the symmetric and monotone functions as its subclasses. We show that for any zebra function, decision tree complexity is at most the square of block sensitivity, and certificate complexity is at most the square of degree. Finally, we show using a lifting theorem of communication complexity by Göös, Pitassi and Watson [Göös et al., 2017] that the task of proving an improved upper bound on the decision tree complexity for all functions is in a sense equivalent to the potentially easier task of proving a similar upper bound on communication complexity for each bi-partition of the input variables, for all functions. In particular, this implies that to bound the decision tree complexity it suffices to bound smaller measures like parity decision tree complexity, subcube decision tree complexity and decision tree rank, that are defined in terms of models that can be efficiently simulated by communication protocols.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Oracles and decision trees
Keywords
  • Query complexity
  • Graph Property
  • Boolean functions

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Related Versions

References

  1. Scott Aaronson. Quantum certificate complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 74(3):313-322, 2008. Google Scholar
  2. Scott Aaronson, Shalev Ben-David, Robin Kothari, Shravas Rao, and Avishay Tal. Degree vs. approximate degree and quantum implications of huang’s sensitivity theorem. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1330-1342, 2021. Google Scholar
  3. Scott Aaronson, Shalev Ben-David, Robin Kothari, Shravas Rao, and Avishay Tal. Degree vs. approximate degree and quantum implications of huang’s sensitivity theorem. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1330-1342, 2021. Google Scholar
  4. C-C Yao Andrew. Some complexity questions related to distributed computing. In Proc. 11th STOC, pages 209-213, 1979. Google Scholar
  5. James Aspnes, Eric Blais, Murat Demirbas, Ryan O’Donnell, Atri Rudra, and Steve Uurtamo. k+ decision trees. In International Symposium on Algorithms and Experiments for Sensor Systems, Wireless Networks and Distributed Robotics, pages 74-88. Springer, 2010. Google Scholar
  6. Nikhil Balaji, Samir Datta, Raghav Kulkarni, and Supartha Podder. Graph properties in node-query setting: effect of breaking symmetry. arXiv preprint, 2015. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08267.
  7. Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 48(4):778-797, 2001. Google Scholar
  8. Shalev Ben-David, Andrew M Childs, András Gilyén, William Kretschmer, Supartha Podder, and Daochen Wang. Symmetries, graph properties, and quantum speedups. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 649-660. IEEE, 2020. Google Scholar
  9. Yosi Benasher and Ilan Newman. Decision trees with boolean threshold queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 51(3):495-502, 1995. Google Scholar
  10. M.R. Best, P. van Emde Boas, and H.W. Lenstra. A sharpened version of the aanderaa-rosenberg conjecture. Stichting Mathematisch Centrum. Zuivere Wiskunde. Stichting Mathematisch Centrum., 1974. Google Scholar
  11. Eric Blais, Clément L. Canonne, Igor Carboni Oliveira, Rocco A. Servedio, and Li-Yang Tan. Learning circuits with few negations. In Naveen Garg, Klaus Jansen, Anup Rao, and José D. P. Rolim, editors, Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2015, August 24-26, 2015, Princeton, NJ, USA, volume 40 of LIPIcs, pages 512-527. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2015. Google Scholar
  12. Harry Buhrman and Ronald De Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: A survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21-43, 2002. Google Scholar
  13. Amit Chakrabarti and Subhash Khot. Improved lower bounds on the randomized complexity of graph properties. Random Struct. Algorithms, 30(3):427-440, 2007. Google Scholar
  14. Andrew M Childs and Robin Kothari. Quantum query complexity of minor-closed graph properties. SIAM Journal on Computing, 41(6):1426-1450, 2012. Google Scholar
  15. Rahul Chugh, Supartha Podder, and Swagato Sanyal. Decision tree complexity versus block sensitivity and degree. arXiv preprint, 2022. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08042.
  16. Yogesh Dahiya and Meena Mahajan. On (simple) decision tree rank. Theoretical Computer Science, page 114177, 2023. Preliminary version appeared in FSTTCS 2021. Google Scholar
  17. Krishnamoorthy Dinesh and Jayalal Sarma. Alternation, sparsity and sensitivity: Bounds and exponential gaps. Theoretical Computer Science, 771:71-82, 2019. Google Scholar
  18. Yevgeniy Dodis and Sanjeev Khanna. Space-time tradeoffs for graph properties. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 291-300. Springer, 1999. Google Scholar
  19. Andrzej Ehrenfeucht and David Haussler. Learning decision trees from random examples. Information and Computation, 82(3):231-246, 1989. Google Scholar
  20. Justin Gilmer, Michael Saks, and Srikanth Srinivasan. Composition limits and separating examples for some boolean function complexity measures. Combinatorica, 36(3):265-311, 2016. Google Scholar
  21. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Query-to-communication lifting for bpp. In 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 132-143. IEEE, 2017. Google Scholar
  22. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Deterministic communication vs. partition number. SIAM Journal on Computing, 47(6):2435-2450, 2018. Google Scholar
  23. Siyao Guo, Tal Malkin, Igor C Oliveira, and Alon Rosen. The power of negations in cryptography. In Theory of Cryptography Conference, pages 36-65. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  24. Péter Hajnal. An Ω (n 4/3) lower bound on the randomized complexity of graph properties. Combinatorica, 11(2):131-143, 1991. Google Scholar
  25. Pooya Hatami, Raghav Kulkarni, and Denis Pankratov. Variations on the sensitivity conjecture. Theory of Computing, pages 1-27, 2011. Google Scholar
  26. Hao Huang. Induced subgraphs of hypercubes and a proof of the sensitivity conjecture. Annals of Mathematics, 190(3):949-955, 2019. Google Scholar
  27. Valerie King. Lower bounds on the complexity of graph properties. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 468-476, 1988. Google Scholar
  28. David Kirkpatrick. Determining graph properties from matrix representations. In Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 84-90, 1974. Google Scholar
  29. Raghav Kulkarni and Avishay Tal. On fractional block sensitivity. Chicago J. Theor. Comput. Sci, 8:1-16, 2016. Google Scholar
  30. Eyal Kushilevitz and Noam Nisan. Communication complexity. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Google Scholar
  31. Chengyu Lin and Shengyu Zhang. Sensitivity conjecture and log-rank conjecture for functions with small alternating numbers. In Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Piotr Indyk, Fabian Kuhn, and Anca Muscholl, editors, 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2017, July 10-14, 2017, Warsaw, Poland, volume 80 of LIPIcs, pages 51:1-51:13. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2017. Google Scholar
  32. Andrey A Markov. On the inversion complexity of a system of functions. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 5(4):331-334, 1958. Google Scholar
  33. Gatis Midrijanis. Exact quantum query complexity for total boolean functions. arXiv, 2004. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403168.
  34. Ashley Montanaro and Tobias Osborne. On the communication complexity of xor functions. arXiv preprint, 2009. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3392.
  35. Hiroki Morizumi. Limiting negations in formulas. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 701-712. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  36. Hiroki Morizumi. Limiting negations in non-deterministic circuits. Theoretical Computer Science, 410(38-40):3988-3994, 2009. Google Scholar
  37. Noam Nisan. Crew prams and decision trees. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(6):999-1007, 1991. Google Scholar
  38. Noam Nisan and Mario Szegedy. On the degree of boolean functions as real polynomials. Computational complexity, 4(4):301-313, 1994. Google Scholar
  39. Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. On rank vs. communication complexity. Combinatorica, 15(4):557-565, 1995. Google Scholar
  40. Anup Rao and Amir Yehudayoff. Communication Complexity: and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2020. Google Scholar
  41. Ran Raz and Pierre McKenzie. Separation of the monotone nc hierarchy. In Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 234-243. IEEE, 1997. Google Scholar
  42. Ronald L Rivest and Jean Vuillemin. On recognizing graph properties from adjacency matrices. Theoretical Computer Science, 3(3):371-384, 1976. Google Scholar
  43. Arnold L Rosenberg. On the time required to recognize properties of graphs: A problem. ACM SIGACT News, 5(4):15-16, 1973. Google Scholar
  44. Michael Saks and Avi Wigderson. Probabilistic boolean decision trees and the complexity of evaluating game trees. In 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986), pages 29-38. IEEE, 1986. Google Scholar
  45. Miklos Santha and Christopher Wilson. Limiting negations in constant depth circuits. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22(2):294-302, 1993. Google Scholar
  46. Amir Shpilka, Avishay Tal, and Ben Lee Volk. On the structure of boolean functions with small spectral norm. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Innovations in theoretical computer science, pages 37-48, 2014. Google Scholar
  47. Shao Chin Sung and Keisuke Tanaka. Limiting negations in bounded-depth circuits: An extension of markov’s theorem. Information processing letters, 90(1):15-20, 2004. Google Scholar
  48. Avishay Tal. Properties and applications of boolean function composition. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 441-454, 2013. Google Scholar
  49. Hing Yin Tsang. On boolean functions with low sensitivity. manuscript, 4:10-16, 2014. Google Scholar
  50. Hing Yin Tsang, Chung Hoi Wong, Ning Xie, and Shengyu Zhang. Fourier sparsity, spectral norm, and the log-rank conjecture. In 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 658-667. IEEE, 2013. Google Scholar
  51. G TURIN. The critical complexity of graph properties. Inform. Process. Lm, 18:151-153, 1984. Google Scholar
  52. Joachim von Zur Gathen and James R Roche. Polynomials with two values. Combinatorica, 17(3):345-362, 1997. Google Scholar
  53. Adam Wathieu. Exposition of the Kushilevitz function. Technical report. Northwestern University, Computer Science Department, NU-CS-2022-08, 2022. Google Scholar
  54. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. Lower bounds to randomized algorithms for graph properties. In 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1987), pages 393-400. IEEE, 1987. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact