Relations Between Communication Complexity, Linear Arrangements, and Computational Complexity

  • Jürgen Forster
  • Matthias Krause
  • Satyanarayana V. Lokam
  • Rustam Mubarakzjanov
  • Niels Schmitt
  • Hans Ulrich Simon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2245)


Recently, Forster [7] proved a new lower bound on probabilistic communication complexity in terms of the operator norm of the communication matrix. In this paper, we want to exploit the various relations between communication complexity of distributed Boolean functions, geometric questions related to half space representations of these functions, and the computational complexity of these functions in various restricted models of computation. In order to widen the range of applicability of Forster’s bound, we start with the derivation of a generalized lower bound. We present a concrete family of distributed Boolean functions where the generalized bound leads to a linear lower bound on the probabilistic communication complexity (and thus to an exponential lower bound on the number of Euclidean dimensions needed for a successful half space representation), whereas the old bound fails. We move on to a geometric characterization of the well known communication complexity class C-PP in terms of half space representations achieving a large margin. Our characterization hints to a close connection between the bounded error model of probabilistic communication complexity and the area of large margin classification. In the final section of the paper, we describe how our techniques can be used to prove exponential lower bounds on the size of depth-2 threshold circuits (with still some technical restrictions). Similar results can be obtained for read-k-times randomized ordered binary decision diagram and related models.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N. Alon, P. Frankl, and V. Rödl. Geometrical realization of set systems and probabilistic communication complexity. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 277–280, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Alon and W. Maass. Meanders and their applications in lower bound arguments. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 37:118–129, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosa I. Arriaga and Santosh Vempala. An algorithmic theory of learning: Robust concepts and random projection. In Proceedings of the 40’th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 616–623, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shai Ben-David, Nadav Eiron, and Hans Ulrich Simon. Limitations of learning via embeddings in euclidean half-spaces. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 385–401. Springer Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jehoshua Bruck and Roman Smolensky. Polynomial threshold functions, AC 0 functions and spectral norms. In Proceedings of the 31st Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 632–641, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nello Christianini and John Shawe-Taylor. An Introduction to Support Vector Machines. Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jürgen Forster. A linear bound on the unbounded error probabilistic communication complexity. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 100–106, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jürgen Forster, Niels Schmitt, and Hans Ulrich Simon. Estimating the optimal margins of embeddings in euclidean half spaces. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 402–415. Springer Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Hajnal, W. Maass, P. Pudlàk, M. Szegedy, and G. Turán. Threshold circuits of bounded depth. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 46:129–154, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernd Halstenberg and Rüdiger Reischuk. Different modes of communication. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22(5):913–934, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matthias Krause. Geometric arguments yield better bounds for threshold circuits and distributed computing. Theoretical Computer Science, 156:99–117, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matthias Krause and Pavel Pudlák. On the computational power of depth-2 circuits with threshold and modulo gates. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 48–57, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matthias Krause and Stephan Waack. Variation ranks of communication matrices and lower bounds for depth two circuits having symmetric gates with unbounded fan-in. In Proceedings of the 32nd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 777–782, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramamohan Paturi and Janos Simon. Probabilistic communication complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 33(1):106–123, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin Sauerhoff. On the size of randomized OBDDs and read-once branching programs for k-stable functions. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 488–499. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ingo Wegner. Branching programs and binary decision diagrams — theory and applications. Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications. SIAM, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Forster
    • 1
  • Matthias Krause
    • 2
  • Satyanarayana V. Lokam
    • 3
  • Rustam Mubarakzjanov
    • 4
  • Niels Schmitt
    • 1
  • Hans Ulrich Simon
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für MathematikRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Institut für InformatikUniversität MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.School of MathematicsInstitute for Advanced StudyPrincetonUSA
  4. 4.Fakultät für InformatikUniversität TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations