Search for: All records

We prove several results concerning the communication complexity of a collision-finding problem, each of which has applications to the complexity of cutting-plane proofs, which make inferences based on integer linear inequalities. In particular, we prove an Ω(n^{1−1/k} log k /2^k) lower bound on the k-party number-in-hand communication complexity of collision-finding. This implies a 2^{n^{1−o(1)}} lower bound on the size of tree-like cutting-planes refutations of the bit pigeonhole principle CNFs, which are compact and natural propositional encodings of the negation of the pigeonhole principle, improving on the best previous lower bound of 2^{Ω(√n)}. Using the method of density-restoring partitions, we also extend that previous lower bound to the full range of pigeonhole parameters. Finally, using a refinement of a bottleneck-counting framework of Haken and Cook and Sokolov for DAG-like communication protocols, we give a 2^{Ω(n^{1/4})} lower bound on the size of fully general (not necessarily tree-like) cutting planes refutations of the same bit pigeonhole principle formulas, improving on the best previous lower bound of 2^{Ω(n^{1/8})}. 

Cumulative memory—the sum of space used per step over the duration of a computation—is a fine-grained measure of time-space complexity that was introduced to analyze cryptographic applications like password hashing. It is a more accurate cost measure for algorithms that have infrequent spikes in memory usage and are run in environments such as cloud computing that allow dynamic allocation and de-allocation of resources during execution, or when many instances of an algorithm are interleaved in parallel. We prove the first lower bounds on cumulative memory complexity for both sequential classical computation and quantum circuits. Moreover, we develop general paradigms for bounding cumulative memory complexity inspired by the standard paradigms for proving time-space tradeoff lower bounds that can only lower bound the maximum space used during an execution. The resulting lower bounds on cumulative memory that we obtain are just as strong as the best time-space tradeoff lower bounds, which are very often known to be tight. Although previous results for pebbling and random oracle models have yielded time-space tradeoff lower bounds larger than the cumulative memory complexity, our results show that in general computational models such separations cannot follow from known lower bound techniques and are not true for many functions. Among many possible applications of our general methods, we show that any classical sorting algorithm with success probability at least 1/poly(n) requires cumulative memory\(\tilde{\Omega }(n^2) \), any classical matrix multiplication algorithm requires cumulative memoryΩ(n⁶/T), any quantum sorting circuit requires cumulative memoryΩ(n³/T), and any quantum circuit that findskdisjoint collisions in a random function requires cumulative memoryΩ(k³n/T²). 

We prove several results concerning the communication complexity of a collision-finding problem, each of which has applications to the complexity of cutting-plane proofs, which make inferences based on integer linear inequalities. In particular, we prove an Ω(n^{1-1/k} log k /2^k) lower bound on the k-party number-in-hand communication complexity of collision-finding. This implies a 2^{n^{1-o(1)}} lower bound on the size of tree-like cutting-planes refutations of the bit pigeonhole principle CNFs, which are compact and natural propositional encodings of the negation of the pigeonhole principle, improving on the best previous lower bound of 2^{Ω(√n)}. Using the method of density-restoring partitions, we also extend that previous lower bound to the full range of pigeonhole parameters. Finally, using a refinement of a bottleneck-counting framework of Haken and Cook and Sokolov for DAG-like communication protocols, we give a 2^{Ω(n^{1/4})} lower bound on the size of fully general (not necessarily tree-like) cutting planes refutations of the same bit pigeonhole principle formulas, improving on the best previous lower bound of 2^{Ω(n^{1/8})}.