4 Upper bound on the deterministic communication complexity of \(\operatorname{eval}\)
Given a coloring \(c : \{ x \mid \operatorname{eval}x = 1\} \to [C]\), writing \(a_i\) the vector whose \(j\)-th coordinate is \(x_j\) except when \(j = i\) in which case it is \(-\sum _{j \ne i} x_j\), we define the non-monochromatic protocol for \(c\) by making participant \(i\) do “Send the \(t / d\)-th bit of \(c(a_i)\) until time \(\lceil \log _2\chi _d(G)\rceil \), then send \(1\) iff \(c(a_i)\) agrees with the broadcast from time \(1\) to time \(\lceil \log _2\chi _d(G)\rceil \) read as a color” and “Send \(1\) iff the broadcasts from time \(\lceil \log _2\chi _d(G)\rceil \) to time \(\lceil \log _2\chi _d(G)\rceil + d\) were all \(1\)”.
If \(c\) is a coloring such that all monochromatic forbidden patterns are trivial, then the non-monochromatic protocol for \(c\) is valid in time \(\lceil \log _2\chi _d(G)\rceil + d\).
We have
where the first equivalence holds by definition, the second one holds by assumption and the third one holds since the \(a_i\) form a forbidden pattern.