## Comparing three proofs on the randomized communication complexity of hamming distance

Received February 3, 2013; Published February 26, 2013
Abstract: We compare the proofs by and of a linear lower bound on the randomized communication complexity of the gapHamming distance problem.

Concurrently with and independently of Sherstov’s work published in theauthor of this comment obtained a separate proof of the same main result a linear lower bound onthe randomized communication complexity of the gap Hamming distance (GHD) problem (available in
Both Sherstov’s and the author’s proofs build on the work of Chakrabarti and Regev who were
the first to prove a linear lower bound. The three papers follow a similar path but differ in interesting
ways. Although Sherstov’s paper already contains a comparison, we take the opportunity of this comment
Key words and phrases: communication complexity, gap Hamming distance
to briefly highlight the main differences between the three approaches. The interested reader will findadditional details in either of the three papers.

As already explained by Sherstov (Section 1.2 in all three proofs have at their heart an anti-
concentration statement for the inner product of a pair (x, y) of unit vectors chosen uniformly at randomfrom subsets A, B of
R of large enough measure. The proofs differ in the precise anti-concentration
statement and how it is obtained, as well as how it is used to derive the communication lower bound onGHD.

First, the anti-concentration statements made in and apply to subsets of the n-dimensional
Euclidean space equipped with the Gaussian measure, while in it applies to subsets of the Hammingcube (itself viewed as a subset of the n-dimensional Euclidean space) equipped with the uniform measure.

A second difference arises in the way anti-concentration is proved. In and the key idea is
to show that any set A of large enough measure, at least 2−cn for some small enough constant c > 0,contains a linear (in n) number of almost-orthogonal vectors (Lemma 3.1 in an anti-concentrationstatement then follows without too much difficulty (see Lemma 3.2 in In a different argument isused. The set A is represented as a positive semidefinite matrix A = Ex∈A[xxT ]. Intuitively, the spectrumof A describes how “pointy” the set A is. The anti-concentration result (Theorem 1.1 in followsfrom showing that provided A is large enough A must have a linear number of eigenvalues of constantmagnitude (Claim 3.3 in The proof therefore does not require singling out specific vectors in A,
which would in a way break the symmetry of the problem. Identifying such vectors is the more technically
involved part of the proofs in where they are obtained by applying a lemma of Raz (Lemma 3.4in and in where their existence is shown using a result of Talagrand (Theorem 5.1 in
Finally, Sherstov introduces a nice simplification to obtain the communication lower bound on
GHD from the anti-concentration bound: by considering a related problem, “gap orthogonality,” whosecomplexity is easily shown to be equivalent to that of GHD, he makes it possible to use Yao’s corruptionbound instead of the partition bound by Jain and Klauck used in
[1] AMIT CHAKRABARTI AND ODED REGEV: An optimal lower bound on the communication complex-
ity of gap-Hamming-distance. 41(5):1299–1317, 2012. Preliminary
[2] ALEXANDER A. SHERSTOV: The communication complexity of gap Hamming distance.
[3] THOMAS VIDICK: A concentration inequality for the overlap of a vector on a large set, with
application to the communication complexity of the gap-Hamming-distance problem.

THREE PROOFS ON THE RANDOMIZED COMMUNICATION COMPLEXITY OF HAMMING DISTANCE

Source: http://toc.ilab.sztaki.hu/comments/v008a008c1/v008a008c1.pdf

ATTENTION DEFICIT After completing this educational activity, HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER { Discuss the occurrence and distribution of ADHD from childhood through adulthood. { Outline the current understanding of the causes of { Discuss the impact of ADHD symptoms on function. { Discuss teaching-related practices that have been found to be useful with students with ADH

INDICATIONS: A topical application for use on horses and ponies. For prevention or treatment of bacterial infections of superficial wounds, abrasions and lacerations due to Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp. and Proteus spp. sensitive to furazolidone. DIRECTIONS: SHAKE WELL BEFORE USING. Cleanse affected area thoroughly prior to application of Furall. Apply lightly once or twice daily