More Like this

1. Delta channel networks: 2. Metrics of topologic and dynamic complexity for delta comparison, physical inference, and vulnerability assessment: METRICS OF TOPOLOGIC AND DYNAMIC COMPLEXITY FOR DELTAS

   https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016604  

   Tejedor, Alejandro ; Longjas, Anthony ; Zaliapin, Ilya ; Foufoula-Georgiou, Efi ( June 2015 , Water Resources Research)
2. Improving spatial decision making using interactive maps: An empirical study on interface complexity and decision complexity in the North American hazardous waste trade

   https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808318764122  

   Vincent, Kristen ; Roth, Robert E. ; Moore, Sarah A. ; Huang, Qunying ; Lally, Nick ; Sack, Carl M. ; Nost, Eric ; Rosenfeld, Heather ( April 2018 , Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science)
3. SIGACT News Complexity Theory Column 106: Teaching Models, Computability, and Complexity in Time of COVID-19

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3427361.3427371  

   Hemaspaandra, Lane A. ( September 2020 , ACM SIGACT News)

   As I write this in July 2020, I have no idea what the COVID-19 situation will be like when this September 2020 issue reaches your mailbox or your previewer. My typical advice is to prove exciting theorems. But in these times, all I can share are my hopes: that you'll each be safe and well (and that the medical profes- sion will create an effective vac- cine quickly enough that early in 2021 schools can return to fully in-person teaching); that you'll nd ways to, if a faculty member, help your students thrive even in the hybrid-mode-learning settings they'll probably nd themselves in for the fall semester; and that you'll (while staying careful and safe) nd time to (yes, here it comes) prove exciting theorems.
4. Beyond time complexity: data movement complexity analysis for matrix multiplication

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3524059.3532395  

   Smith, Wesley ; Goldfarb, Aidan ; Ding, Chen ( June 2022 , 2022 International Conference on Supercomputing (ICS ’22))
5. Proof Complexity Lower Bounds from Algebraic Circuit Complexity

   https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2021.v017a010  

   Forbes, Michael A. ; Shpilka, Amir ; Tzameret, Iddo ; Wigderson, Avi ( January 2021 , Theory of Computing)

   Raz, Ran (Ed.)

   We give upper and lower bounds on the power of subsystems of the Ideal Proof System (IPS), the algebraic proof system recently proposed by Grochow and Pitassi, where the circuits comprising the proof come from various restricted algebraic circuit classes. This mimics an established research direction in the boolean setting for subsystems of Extended Frege proofs whose lines are circuits from restricted boolean circuit classes. Essentially all of the subsystems considered in this paper can simulate the well-studied Nullstellensatz proof system, and prior to this work there were no known lower bounds when measuring proof size by the algebraic complexity of the polynomials (except with respect to degree, or to sparsity). Our main contributions are two general methods of converting certain algebraic lower bounds into proof complexity ones. Both require stronger arithmetic lower bounds than common, which should hold not for a specific polynomial but for a whole family defined by it. These may be likened to some of the methods by which Boolean circuit lower bounds are turned into related proof-complexity ones, especially the "feasible interpolation" technique. We establish algebraic lower bounds of these forms for several explicit polynomials, against a variety of classes, and infer the relevant proofmore »complexity bounds. These yield separations between IPS subsystems, which we complement by simulations to create a partial structure theory for IPS systems. Our first method is a functional lower bound, a notion of Grigoriev and Razborov, which is a function f' from n-bit strings to a field, such that any polynomial f agreeing with f' on the boolean cube requires large algebraic circuit complexity. We develop functional lower bounds for a variety of circuit classes (sparse polynomials, depth-3 powering formulas, read-once algebraic branching programs and multilinear formulas) where f'(x) equals 1/p(x) for a constant-degree polynomial p depending on the relevant circuit class. We believe these lower bounds are of independent interest in algebraic complexity, and show that they also imply lower bounds for the size of the corresponding IPS refutations for proving that the relevant polynomial p is non-zero over the boolean cube. In particular, we show super-polynomial lower bounds for refuting variants of the subset-sum axioms in these IPS subsystems. Our second method is to give lower bounds for multiples, that is, to give explicit polynomials whose all (non-zero) multiples require large algebraic circuit complexity. By extending known techniques, we give lower bounds for multiples for various restricted circuit classes such sparse polynomials, sums of powers of low-degree polynomials, and roABPs. These results are of independent interest, as we argue that lower bounds for multiples is the correct notion for instantiating the algebraic hardness versus randomness paradigm of Kabanets and Impagliazzo. Further, we show how such lower bounds for multiples extend to lower bounds for refutations in the corresponding IPS subsystem.« less