Monotone Bounded Depth Formula Complexity of Graph Homomorphism Polynomials

Abstract

We introduce baggy elimination trees, a novel graph decomposition that generalises the classical elimination trees underlying treedepth, and use them to give a complete characterisation of the monotone bounded-depth formula complexity of graph homomorphism and coloured isomorphism polynomials. Specifically, we prove that the Δ-product depth monotone formula complexity of these polynomials is Θ\!(nλΔ(H)), where λΔ(H) is the minimum cost of a baggy elimination tree for H at BET-depth~Δ. This result closes the last open case in the programme initiated by Komarath, Pandey and Rahul and continued by Bhargav, Chen, Curticapean and Dwivedi: tight size characterisations of monotone circuit complexity (via treewidth / bounded-depth treewidth), monotone ABP complexity (via pathwidth / bounded-depth pathwidth), and monotone formula complexity (via treedepth) were already known; our theorem supplies the missing bounded-depth formula characterisation via the new notion of bounded-depth baggy-elimination-tree cost λΔ, completing the picture for all three models in algebraic complexity and their fixed depth variants. As applications, for constant-degree polynomial families we derive an almost-optimal separation between monotone circuits and monotone formulas at every fixed product depth: there exists a family computable by O(N)-size monotone circuits of product depth Δ that requires Ω(NΔ/2)-size monotone formulas of the same depth (and this exponent is optimal up to a constant factor). We also prove a strict depth hierarchy: for every Δ≥ 1 and every constant k ≥ 2, there is a constant-degree family with O(s(N))-size monotone formulas of product depth Δ that requires Ω(s(N)k)-size monotone formulas of product depth Δ- 1.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…