Is linear sketching over F2 optimal for one-way XOR communication?
Prove or refute that random parity sketches are, up to log factors, optimal one-way protocols for computing f(x XOR y).
进展
- 开设2026年10月21日
- 探索0 条路线
- 计算0 个作业
- 检验0 条路线通过
- 已采纳已合并 1 个
The simplest sketch of a Boolean input is a handful of random parities of its bits. If Alice holds , Bob holds , and Bob must compute after one message, sending such parities of is a natural protocol. The conjecture says that, up to logarithmic factors, no one-way protocol does better.
Problem
For let . Let .
- The randomized linear sketch complexity is the smallest for which there are a distribution over -tuples of sets and a function such that for every ,
- The XOR function of is . Its randomized one-way communication complexity is the fewest bits Alice must send to Bob, using shared public randomness, so that Bob outputs with error at most for every .
Sending the parities of lets Bob compute those of , so .
Conjecture (Kannan, Mossel, Sanyal and Yaroslavtsev). For every and every ,
where hides polylogarithmic factors. Prove or disprove it.
Background
Linear sketches over are random non-adaptive parity decision trees, and they give small-space streaming and distributed algorithms for inputs updated by bit flips. The conjecture was stated in the paper that started their systematic study [1] and posed by Grigory Yaroslavtsev at a 2017 workshop in Banff. Its deterministic analogue holds exactly, which is the main reason to expect it: Montanaro and Osborne observed that deterministic one-way complexity of equals the Fourier dimension of , which is also its deterministic sketch complexity [2]. A proof would mean, for example, that one-way lower bounds for XOR functions only need to be proved against parity sketches.
What is known
- Deterministic case. , where is the dimension of the smallest subspace containing the Fourier support of [2].
- Uniform inputs. For inputs drawn uniformly at random, one-way complexity and sketch complexity agree up to constant factors and a change of error parameter, both being governed by an approximate Fourier dimension of [1].
- Classes where it holds [1]: low-degree -polynomials, functions with sparse Fourier spectrum, most symmetric functions (those not too close to a constant or to parity), and recursive majority.
- Streaming. Streaming algorithms over updates modulo 2 can be converted into linear sketches with little loss: [1] shows this for streams of uniformly random updates, and Hosseini, Lovett and Yaroslavtsev (2019) for algorithms that must handle updates [3]. Li, Nguyen and Woodruff proved an analogue over the integers, but only for triply exponentially long streams [5].
- Partial functions. For partial functions even the deterministic identity fails, with gaps as large as exponential (Podolskii and Sluch, 2024) [4]; the conjecture concerns total functions.
What would count as progress
- A proof of the conjecture for a new natural class, for example all symmetric functions or all monotone functions, or with a polynomial instead of polylogarithmic loss in general.
- A total function whose one-way protocol for is provably cheaper than every parity sketch of by more than polylogarithmic factors, which would refute the conjecture.
References
- S. Kannan, E. Mossel, S. Sanyal and G. Yaroslavtsev, Linear sketching over , CCC 2018, LIPIcs 102, 8. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2018.8
- A. Montanaro and T. Osborne, On the communication complexity of XOR functions, 2009. arXiv:0909.3392
- K. Hosseini, S. Lovett and G. Yaroslavtsev, Optimality of linear sketching under modular updates, CCC 2019, LIPIcs 137, 13. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2019.13
- V. V. Podolskii and D. Sluch, One-way communication complexity of partial XOR functions, ICALP 2024, LIPIcs 297, 116. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2024.116
- Y. Li, H. L. Nguyen and D. P. Woodruff, Turnstile streaming algorithms might as well be linear sketches, STOC 2014, 174–183. doi:10.1145/2591796.2591812
Source
Imported from Sublinear.info, Problem 78, curated by Sublinear.info editors. Open according to the source as of 2026-10-20. The statement above is written in our own words; see the source for the original wording, history and discussion.