Pebbling, Entropy and Branching Program Size Lower Bounds

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Abstract

We contribute to the program of proving lower bounds on the size of branching programs solving the Tree Evaluation Problem introduced by Cook et. al. (2012). Proving a super-polynomial lower bound for the size of nondeterministic thrifty branching programs (NTBP) would separate NLNL from PP for thrifty models solving the tree evaluation problem. First, we show that {\em Read-Once NTBPs} are equivalent to whole black-white pebbling algorithms thus showing a tight lower bound (ignoring polynomial factors) for this model. We then introduce a weaker restriction of NTBPs called {\em Bitwise Independence}. The best known NTBPs (of size O(kh/2+1)O(k^{h/2+1})) for the tree evaluation problem given by Cook et. al. (2012) are Bitwise Independent. As our main result, we show that any Bitwise Independent NTBP solving TEP2h(k)TEP_{2}^{h}(k) must have at least 12kh/2\frac{1}{2}k^{h/2} states. Prior to this work, lower bounds were known for NTBPs only for fixed heights h=2,3,4h=2,3,4 (See Cook et. al. (2012)). We prove our results by associating a fractional black-white pebbling strategy with any bitwise independent NTBP solving the Tree Evaluation Problem. Such a connection was not known previously even for fixed heights. Our main technique is the entropy method introduced by Jukna and Z{á}k (2001) originally in the context of proving lower bounds for read-once branching programs. We also show that the previous lower bounds given by Cook et. al. (2012) for deterministic branching programs for Tree Evaluation Problem can be obtained using this approach. Using this method, we also show tight lower bounds for any kk-way deterministic branching program solving Tree Evaluation Problem when the instances are restricted to have the same group operation in all internal nodes.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.