Document Open Access Logo

The Approximate Degree of Bipartite Perfect Matching

Author Gal Beniamini

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.CCC.2022.1.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.4 MB
  • 26 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Gal Beniamini
  • The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Noam Nisan and Nati Linial for helpful discussions. I would also like to thank Bruno Loff for pointing out typographical errors in an earlier version.

Cite As Get BibTex

Gal Beniamini. The Approximate Degree of Bipartite Perfect Matching. In 37th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 234, pp. 1:1-1:26, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2022.1

Abstract

The approximate degree of a Boolean function is the least degree of a real multilinear polynomial approximating it in the 𝓁_∞-norm over the Boolean hypercube. We show that the approximate degree of the Bipartite Perfect Matching function, which is the indicator over all bipartite graphs having a perfect matching of order n, is Θ̃(n^(3/2)).
The upper bound is obtained by fully characterizing the unique multilinear polynomial representing the Boolean dual of the perfect matching function, over the reals. Crucially, we show that this polynomial has very small 𝓁₁-norm - only exponential in Θ(n log n). The lower bound follows by bounding the spectral sensitivity of the perfect matching function, which is the spectral radius of its cut-graph on the hypercube [Aaronson et al., 2021; Huang, 2019]. We show that the spectral sensitivity of perfect matching is exactly Θ(n^(3/2)).

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Mathematics of computing → Matchings and factors
  • Theory of computation → Algebraic complexity theory
  • Theory of computation → Oracles and decision trees
Keywords
  • Bipartite Perfect Matching
  • Boolean Functions
  • Approximate Degree

Metrics

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

Related Versions

References

  1. 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, 2021. Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Gal Beniamini and Noam Nisan. Bipartite perfect matching as a real polynomial. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2021. Google Scholar
  4. Charles H Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani. Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM journal on Computing, 26(5):1510-1523, 1997. Google Scholar
  5. Louis J Billera and Aravamuthan Sarangarajan. The combinatorics of permutation polytopes. In Formal power series and algebraic combinatorics, volume 24, pages 1-23, 1994. Google Scholar
  6. Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Ronald De Wolf, and Christof Zalka. Bounds for small-error and zero-error quantum algorithms. In 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No. 99CB37039), pages 358-368. IEEE, 1999. Google Scholar
  7. Harry Buhrman and Ronald De Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21-43, 2002. Google Scholar
  8. Mark Bun, Robin Kothari, and Justin Thaler. The polynomial method strikes back: Tight quantum query bounds via dual polynomials. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 297-310, 2018. Google Scholar
  9. Mark Bun and Justin Thaler. A nearly optimal lower bound on the approximate degree of AC⁰. SIAM Journal on Computing, 49(4):FOCS17-59, 2019. Google Scholar
  10. Mark Bun and Justin Thaler. Guest column: Approximate degree in classical and quantum computing. ACM SIGACT News, 51(4):48-72, 2021. Google Scholar
  11. Karthekeyan Chandrasekaran, Justin Thaler, Jonathan Ullman, and Andrew Wan. Faster private release of marginals on small databases. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Innovations in theoretical computer science, pages 387-402, 2014. Google Scholar
  12. Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 212-219, 1996. Google Scholar
  13. Gábor Hetyei. Rectangular configurations which can be covered by 2×1 rectangles. Pécsi Tan. Foisk. Közl, 8:351-367, 1964. Google Scholar
  14. John E Hopcroft and Richard M Karp. An n^5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs. SIAM Journal on computing, 2(4):225-231, 1973. Google Scholar
  15. Hao Huang. Induced subgraphs of hypercubes and a proof of the sensitivity conjecture. Annals of Mathematics, 190(3):949-955, 2019. Google Scholar
  16. Adam Tauman Kalai, Adam R Klivans, Yishay Mansour, and Rocco A Servedio. Agnostically learning halfspaces. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(6):1777-1805, 2008. Google Scholar
  17. Adam R Klivans and Rocco A Servedio. Learning DNF in time 2^õ(n^1/3). Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 68(2):303-318, 2004. Google Scholar
  18. Cedric Yen-Yu Lin and Han-Hsuan Lin. Upper bounds on quantum query complexity inspired by the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC ’15, 2015. Google Scholar
  19. Kurt Mehlhorn and Erik M Schmidt. Las vegas is better than determinism in VLSI and distributed computing. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 330-337, 1982. Google Scholar
  20. Marvin L Minsky and Seymour A Papert. Perceptrons: expanded edition, 1988. Google Scholar
  21. Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002. Google Scholar
  22. Noam Nisan. The demand query model for bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 592-599. SIAM, 2021. Google Scholar
  23. Noam Nisan and Mario Szegedy. On the degree of Boolean functions as real polynomials. Computational complexity, 4(4):301-313, 1994. Google Scholar
  24. Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. On rank vs. communication complexity. Combinatorica, 15(4):557-565, 1995. Google Scholar
  25. Ryan O'Donnell. Analysis of Boolean Functions. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Google Scholar
  26. M.D. Plummer and L. Lovász. Matching Theory. North-Holland Mathematics Studies. Elsevier Science, 1986. Google Scholar
  27. Alexander A Sherstov. Separating AC⁰ from depth-2 majority circuits. SIAM Journal on Computing, 38(6):2113-2129, 2009. Google Scholar
  28. Alexander A Sherstov. The pattern matrix method. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(6):1969-2000, 2011. Google Scholar
  29. Alexander A Sherstov. Algorithmic polynomials. SIAM Journal on Computing, 49(6):1173-1231, 2020. Google Scholar
  30. Yaoyun Shi and Yufan Zhu. Quantum communication complexity of block-composed functions. arXiv preprint, 2007. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0095.
  31. Justin Thaler, Jonathan Ullman, and Salil Vadhan. Faster algorithms for privately releasing marginals. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 810-821. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  32. Shengyu Zhang. On the power of Ambainis’s lower bounds. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 1238-1250. Springer, 2004. 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 About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact