Sensitivity Conjecture and Log-Rank Conjecture for Functions with Small Alternating Numbers

Authors Chengyu Lin, Shengyu Zhang

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.56 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Chengyu Lin
Shengyu Zhang

Cite AsGet BibTex

Chengyu Lin and Shengyu Zhang. Sensitivity Conjecture and Log-Rank Conjecture for Functions with Small Alternating Numbers. In 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 80, pp. 51:1-51:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)


The Sensitivity Conjecture and the Log-rank Conjecture are among the most important and challenging problems in concrete complexity. Incidentally, the Sensitivity Conjecture is known to hold for monotone functions, and so is the Log-rank Conjecture for f(x and y) and f(x xor y) with monotone functions f, where and and xor are bit-wise AND and XOR , respectively. In this paper, we extend these results to functions f which alternate values for a relatively small number of times on any monotone path from 0^n to 1^n. These deepen our understandings of the two conjectures, and contribute to the recent line of research on functions with small alternating numbers.
  • Analysis of Boolean functions
  • Sensitivity Conjecture
  • Log-rank Conjecture
  • Alternating Number


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


  1. Andris Ambainis. Communication complexity in a 3-computer model. Algorithmica, 16(3):298-301, 1996. Google Scholar
  2. Andris Ambainis, Mohammad Bavarian, Yihan Gao, Jieming Mao, Xiaoming Sun, and Song Zuo. Tighter relations between sensitivity and other complexity measures. In Proceedings of the 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 101-113. 2014. Google Scholar
  3. Andris Ambainis, Krišjānis Prūsis, and Jevgēnijs Vihrovs. Sensitivity versus certificate complexity of Boolean functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.07691, 2015. Google Scholar
  4. Andris Ambainis, Leonard Schulman, Amnon Ta-Shma, Umesh Vazirani, and Avi Wigderson. The quantum communication complexity of sampling. SIAM Journal on Computing, 32(6):1570-1585, 2003. Google Scholar
  5. Andris Ambainis and Xiaoming Sun. New separation between s(f) and bs(f). CoRR, abs/1108.3494, 2011. Google Scholar
  6. Andris Ambainis and Jevgēnijs Vihrovs. Size of sets with small sensitivity: A generalization of Simon’s lemma. In Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pages 122-133. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  7. László Babai and Peter G. Kimmel. Randomized simultaneous messages: Solution of a problem of Yao in communication complexity. In IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 239-246, 1997. Google Scholar
  8. Mitali Bafna, Satyanarayana V Lokam, Sébastien Tavenas, and Ameya Velingker. On the sensitivity conjecture for read-k formulas. In LIPIcs-Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, volume 58. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016. Google Scholar
  9. Shalev Ben-David. Low-sensitivity functions from unambiguous certificates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07084, 2016. Google Scholar
  10. Eric Blais, Clément L Canonne, Igor C Oliveira, Rocco A Servedio, and Li-Yang Tan. Learning circuits with few negations. arXiv:1410.8420, 2014. Google Scholar
  11. Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters, 87(16), 2001. Google Scholar
  12. Harry Buhrman and Ronald de Wolf. Communication complexity lower bounds by polynomials. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 120-130, 2001. Google Scholar
  13. Harry Buhrman and Ronald de Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21-43, 2002. Google Scholar
  14. Sourav Chakraborty. On the sensitivity of cyclically-invariant Boolean functions. In Computational Complexity, 2005. Proceedings. Twentieth Annual IEEE Conference on, pages 163-167. IEEE, 2005. Google Scholar
  15. Arkadev Chattopadhyay and Toniann Pitassi. The story of set disjointness. SIGACT News, 41(3):59-85, 2010. Google Scholar
  16. Dmitry Gavinsky, Julia Kempe, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum communication cannot simulate a public coin. arXiv:quant-ph/0411051, 2004. Google Scholar
  17. Dmitry Gavinsky and Shachar Lovett. En route to the log-rank conjecture: New reductions and equialent formulations. In Proceedings of the 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 514-524. 2014. Google Scholar
  18. Justin Gilmer, Michal Kouckỳ, and Michael E Saks. A new approach to the sensitivity conjecture. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 247-254. ACM, 2015. Google Scholar
  19. Mika Göös and T. S. Jayram. A composition theorem for conical juntas. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, 22:167, 2015. Google Scholar
  20. Mika Göös, Toniann Pitassi, and Thomas Watson. Deterministic communication vs. partition number. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 1077-1088, 2015. Google Scholar
  21. Parikshit Gopalan, Noam Nisan, Rocco A Servedio, Kunal Talwar, and Avi Wigderson. Smooth Boolean functions are easy: efficient algorithms for low-sensitivity functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.02420, 2015. Google Scholar
  22. Parikshit Gopalan, Rocco Servedio, Avishay Tal, and Avi Wigderson. Degree and sensitivity: tails of two distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07432, 2016. Google Scholar
  23. Siyao Guo, Tal Malkin, Igor C Oliveira, and Alon Rosen. The power of negations in cryptography. In Theory of Cryptography, pages 36-65. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  24. Pooya Hatami, Raghav Kulkarni, and Denis Pankratov. Variations on the sensitivity conjecture. (4):1-27, 2011. Google Scholar
  25. Kun He, Qian Li, and Xiaoming Sun. A tighter relation between sensitivity and certificate complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04342, 2016. Google Scholar
  26. Wei Huang, Yaoyun Shi, Shengyu Zhang, and Yufan Zhu. The communication complexity of the Hamming Distance problem. Information Processing Letters, 99(4):149-153, 2006. Google Scholar
  27. Rahul Jain, Hartmut Klauck, and Shengyu Zhang. Depth-independent lower bounds on the communication complexity of read-once Boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics, pages 54-59, 2010. Google Scholar
  28. T. S. Jayram, Swastik Kopparty, and Prasad Raghavendra. On the communication complexity of read-once AC⁰ formulae. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 329-340, 2009. Google Scholar
  29. Stasys Jukna. Boolean Function Complexity. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  30. Raghav Kulkarni and Miklos Santha. Query complexity of matroids. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Algorithms and Complexity, 2013. Google Scholar
  31. Eyal Kushilevitz and Noam Nisan. Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997. Google Scholar
  32. Troy Lee and Shengyu Zhang. Composition theorems in communication complexity. In Automata, Languages and Programming, 37th International Colloquium, pages 475-489, 2010. Google Scholar
  33. Nikos Leonardos and Michael E. Saks. Lower bounds on the randomized communication complexity of read-once functions. Computational Complexity, 19(2):153-181, 2010. Google Scholar
  34. Ming Lam Leung, Yang Li, and Shengyu Zhang. Tight bounds on the communication complexity of symmetric XOR functions in one-way and SMP models. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pages 403-408, 2011. Google Scholar
  35. Yang Liu and Shengyu Zhang. Quantum and randomized communication complexity of XOR functions in the SMP model. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 20:10, 2013. Google Scholar
  36. László Lovász. Communication complexity - a survey. In Bernhard Korte, Laszlo Lovasz, Hans Jurgen Promel, and Alexander Schrijver, editors, Paths, Flows, and VLSI Layout. Oxford University Press, 1990. Google Scholar
  37. László Lovász and Michael E. Saks. Lattices, Möbius functions and communication complexity. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 81-90, 1988. Google Scholar
  38. László Lovász and Michael E. Saks. Communication complexity and combinatorial lattice theory. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 47(2):322-349, 1993. Google Scholar
  39. Shachar Lovett. Communication is bounded by root of rank. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 842-846, 2014. Google Scholar
  40. AA Markov. On the inversion complexity of a system of functions. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 5(4):331-334, 1958. Google Scholar
  41. Kurt Mehlhorn and Erik M. Schmidt. Las Vegas is better than determinism in VLSI and distributed computing (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 330-337, 1982. Google Scholar
  42. Ashley Montanaro and Tobias Osborne. On the communication complexity of XOR functions, 2010. Google Scholar
  43. Hiroki Morizumi. Limiting negations in formulas. In Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 701-712. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  44. Hiroki Morizumi. Limiting negations in non-deterministic circuits. Theoretical Computer Science, 410(38):3988-3994, 2009. Google Scholar
  45. Hiroki Morizumi. Sensitivity, block sensitivity, and certificate complexity of unate functions and read-once functions. In Theoretical Computer Science, pages 104-110. Springer, 2014. Google Scholar
  46. Ilan Newman and Mario Szegedy. Public vs. private coin flips in one round communication games. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 561-570, 1996. Google Scholar
  47. Noam Nisan. CREW PRAMs and decision trees. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(6):999-1007, 1991. Google Scholar
  48. Noam Nisan and Mario Szegedy. On the degree of Boolean functions as real polynomials. Computational Complexity, 4:301-313, 1994. Google Scholar
  49. Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. On rank vs. communication complexity. Combinatorica, 15(4):557-565, 1995. Google Scholar
  50. Ryan O'Donnell, John Wright, Yu Zhao, Xiaorui Sun, and Li-Yang Tan. A composition theorem for parity kill number. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 144-154, 2014. Google Scholar
  51. David Rubinstein. Sensitivity vs. block sensitivity of Boolean functions. Combinatorica, 15(2):297-299, 1995. Google Scholar
  52. Miklos Santha and Christopher Wilson. Limiting negations in constant depth circuits. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22(2):294-302, 1993. Google Scholar
  53. Alexander A. Sherstov. Communication complexity theory: Thirty-five years of set disjointness. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2014 - 39th International Symposium, pages 24-43, 2014. Google Scholar
  54. Hans-Ulrich Simon. A tight Ω(log log n)-bound on the time for parallel ram’s to compute nondegenerated Boolean functions. In Proceedings of the 1983 International Conference on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, volume 158 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 439-444, 1983. Google Scholar
  55. Xiaoming Sun and Chengu Wang. Randomized communication complexity for linear algebra problems over finite fields. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 477-488, 2012. Google Scholar
  56. Shao Chin Sung and Keisuke Tanaka. Limiting negations in bounded-depth circuits: an extension of Markov’s theorem. 2003. Google Scholar
  57. Sébastien Tavenas and C. S. Karthik. On the sensitivity conjecture for disjunctive normal forms. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 15:1-15:15, 2016. Google Scholar
  58. Hing Yin Tsang. On Boolean functions with low sensitivity. manuscript, 2015. available at final-papers/tsang.pdf. Google Scholar
  59. Hing Yin Tsang, Chung Hoi Wong, Ning Xie, and Shengyu Zhang. Fourier sparsity, spectral norm, and the Log-rank Conjecture. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE Symposium Foundations of Computer Science, pages 658-667, 2013. Google Scholar
  60. György Turán. The critical complexity of graph properties. Information Processing Letters, 18(3):151-153, 1984. Google Scholar
  61. Paul Valiant. The log-rank conjecture and low degree polynomials. Information Processing Letters, 89(2):99-103, 2004. Google Scholar
  62. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. Some complexity questions related to distributive computing. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 209-213, 1979. Google Scholar
  63. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. On the power of quantum fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 77-81, 2003. Google Scholar
  64. Penghui Yao. Parity decision tree complexity and 4-party communication complexity of xor-functions are polynomially equivalent. arXiv:, 1506.02936, 2015. Google Scholar
  65. Shengyu Zhang. Quantum strategic game theory. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 39-59, 2012. Google Scholar
  66. Shengyu Zhang. Efficient quantum protocols for XOR functions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1878-1885, 2014. Google Scholar
  67. Zhiqiang Zhang and Yaoyun Shi. Communication complexities of symmetric XOR functions. Quantum Information & Computation, 9(3):255-263, 2009. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail