Paper detail

Pebbling, Entropy and Branching Program Size Lower Bounds

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 $NL$ from $P$ 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 $O(k^{h/2+1})$) 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 $TEP_{2}^{h}(k)$ must have at least $\frac{1}{2}k^{h/2}$ states. Prior to this work, lower bounds were known for NTBPs only for fixed heights $h=2,3,4$ (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 $k$-way deterministic branching program solving Tree Evaluation Problem when the instances are restricted to have the same group operation in all internal nodes.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.