Paper detail

Pebbling and Branching Programs Solving the Tree Evaluation Problem

We study restricted computation models related to the Tree Evaluation Problem}. The TEP was introduced in earlier work as a simple candidate for the (*very*) long term goal of separating L and LogDCFL. The input to the problem is a rooted, balanced binary tree of height h, whose internal nodes are labeled with binary functions on [k] = {1,...,k} (each given simply as a list of k^2 elements of [k]), and whose leaves are labeled with elements of [k]. Each node obtains a value in [k] equal to its binary function applied to the values of its children, and the output is the value of the root. The first restricted computation model, called Fractional Pebbling, is a generalization of the black/white pebbling game on graphs, and arises in a natural way from the search for good upper bounds on the size of nondeterministic branching programs (BPs) solving the TEP - for any fixed h, if the binary tree of height h has fractional pebbling cost at most p, then there are nondeterministic BPs of size O(k^p) solving the height h TEP. We prove a lower bound on the fractional pebbling cost of d-ary trees that is tight to within an additive constant for each fixed d. The second restricted computation model we study is a semantic restriction on (non)deterministic BPs solving the TEP - Thrifty BPs. Deterministic (resp. nondeterministic) thrifty BPs suffice to implement the best known algorithms for the TEP, based on black (resp. fractional) pebbling. In earlier work, for each fixed h a lower bound on the size of deterministic thrifty BPs was proved that is tight for sufficiently large k. We give an alternative proof that achieves the same bound for all k. We show the same bound still holds in a less-restricted model, and also that gradually weaker lower bounds can be obtained for gradually weaker restrictions on the model.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.