Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byNichole Birchenough Modified over 3 years ago

1
3-Query Dictator Testing Ryan O’Donnell Carnegie Mellon University joint work with Yi Wu TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AA A Carnegie Mellon University

2
Motivation: Max-3CSP

3
Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) Input: ¢ ¢ ¢ Output: Assignment: v i 2 {0,1} Desideratum: Satisfy as much as possible. w1w1 w2w2 w3w3 w4w4 w5w5 w6w6 w7w7 w8w8 w9w9 ¢¢¢ + = 1 Definition: 0 · OPT · 1 is max. possible Definition: · k vbls per constraint: = “Max-kCSP” Fixing “type” of constraints special cases: Max-3Sat Max-3Lin ¢ ¢ ¢

4
Max-2Sat Max-3Sat Max-kSat Max-kLin Max-kCSP Max-Cut Max-Directed-Cut Min-Bisection Sparsest-Cut Balanced-Separator Vertex-Cover Independent-Set Clique Approximate-Graph-Coloring Min-Multiway-Cut Metric-Labeling 0-Extension Cut-Norm Other CSPs (essentially)

5
Max-3CSP Input: ¢ ¢ ¢ Output: Assignment: v i 2 {0,1} Desideratum: Satisfy as much as possible. w1w1 w2w2 w3w3 w4w4 w5w5 w6w6 w7w7 w8w8 w9w9 ¢¢¢ + = 1 Definition: 0 · OPT · 1 is max. possible Definition: · 3 vbls per constraint: = “Max-3CSP”

6
Max-Blah is c vs. s easy: satisfying ¸ s when OPT ¸ c is in poly time. Max-Blah is c vs. s hard: satisfying ¸ s when OPT ¸ c is NP-hard. Computational Complexity of CSPs

7
Approximability of Max-3CSP 1 s c 0 1 (OPT) [Cook71] = NP-hard [Johnson74] 1/8 = in poly time [AS, ALMSS92] [BGS95] (.96) [Trevisan96] 1/4 [TSSW96] (.367) [Håstad97] 3/4 [Trevisan97] (.514) [Zwick98,02] 1/2 5/8 [KS06] (.74)

8
[Zwick98], on his 1 vs. 5/8 easiness result for Max-3CSP: “ We conjecture that this result is optimal. ” “ … the hardest satisfiable instances of Max-3CSP [for the algorithm] turn out to be instances in which all clauses are NTW clauses. ” [Håstad97], p. 65, Concluding remarks: The technique of using Fourier transforms to analyze [Dictator Tests] seems very strong. It does not, however, seem universal even limited to CSPs. In particular, an open question that remains is to decide whether the NTW predicate is non-approximable beyond the random assignment threshold [5/8] on satisfiable instances. Open Problems NTW (a,b,c) = 1, # 1’s among a,b,c is zero, one, or three – i.e., Not Two ” “

9
Dictator Testing (AKA Long Code testing)

10
Property Testing problem Query access to unknown Boolean function f : {0,1} n {0,1} Want to test if f is a Dictator: f(x 1, …, x n ) = x i for some i. Can only make a constant number of queries And by constant, I mean 3 Or fewer And the queries must be non-adaptive Dictator Testing[BGS95]

11
3-Query Dictator Testing randomly chooses: i) 3 strings, x, y, z 2 {0,1} n, ii) a 3-bit predicate, φ :{0,1} 3 → {acc, rej} x, y, z f(x), f(y), f(z) “accepts” iff φ(f(x), f(y), f(z)) = acc “Completeness” ¸ c $ all n Dictators accepted w. prob. ¸ c “Soundness” · s $ “very non-Dictatorial f” accepted “w. prob. · s + o(1)” Tester “Tester uses predicate set Φ” $ Φ = {possible φ’s tester may choose}

12
Soundness Condition Usually: “Every f which is ± -far from all Dictators is accepted w. prob. · s.” [Håstad97]: Too hard! Relax. Definition: f is quasirandom if fixing any O(1) input bits changes bias by at most o(1). Remark: Dictators are the epitome of not being quasirandom. Formally: f is ( ², ± )-quasirandom if for all 0 < |S| · 1/ ±.

13
Quasirandomness Definition: f is quasirandom if fixing any O(1) input bits changes bias by at most o(1). Not quasirandom:Dictators “Juntas” Epitome of quasirandom: Constants (f ´ 0, f ´ 1) Majority Large Parities: f(x) = where |S| > ω(1)

14
Dictator-vs.-quasirandom Tests “Dictator-vs.-quasirandom” Tests: Formally: Given a sequence of tests ( T n ), Soundness · s $ every quasirandom f accepted w. prob. · s + o(1) Soundness · s $ for all ´ > 0, exists ², ± > 0, for all suff. large n, T n accepts every ( ², ± )-quasirandom f w. prob. · s + ´

15
Meta-Theorem: Suppose you build a Dictator-vs.-quasirandom test with: completeness ¸ c, soundness · s, tester uses predicate set Φ. Then Max-Φ is c vs. s + ² hard. (Max–Φ is the CSP where all constraints are from the set Φ.) Connection to Inapproximability

16
[Zwick98], on his 1 vs. 5/8 easiness result for Max-3CSP: “ We conjecture that this result is optimal. ” “ … the hardest satisfiable instances of Max-3CSP [for the algorithm] turn out to be instances in which all clauses are NTW clauses. ” [Håstad97], p. 65, Concluding remarks: The technique of using Fourier transforms to analyze [Dictator Tests] seems very strong. It does not, however, seem universal even limited to CSPs. In particular, an open question that remains is to decide whether the NTW predicate is non-approximable beyond the random assignment threshold [5/8] on satisfiable instances. Implication for Max-3CSP ” “

17
Theorem: a. There is a 3-query Dictator-vs.-quasirandom test, using NTW predicate, with completeness c = 1 and soundness s = 5/8. [Pf: Fourier analysis.] b. Every 3-query Dictator-vs.-quasirandom test, using any mix of predicates, with completeness c = 1 has soundness s ¸ 5/8. [Pf: Uses Zwick’s SDP alg.] Not a Theorem: Max- NTW is 1 vs. 5/8 hard. Why? Meta-Theorem problematic… maybe with Khot’s “2-to-1 Conjecture”…?? Our Results

18
Our NTW -based test: how and why

19
3-Query Dictator-vs.-quasirandom Testing Upper Bound using NTW f ( NTW ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 pqrst Test: Choose triple (x, y, z) from D n. D = w. prob. xixi yiyi zizi = Solution: By “odd-izing” (“folding”) trick, may assume f( : x) = : f(x) Issue: Reqs. uniform distr. on x, y, z )) ) ) z y x

20
3-Query Dictator-vs.-quasirandom Testing Upper Bound using NTW f ( NTW ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 p Test: Choose triple (x, y, z) from D n. D = w. prob. xixi yiyi zizi = Corr[x i, y i ] = Pr[x i = y i ] – Pr[x i y i ] = 2p Solution: Make p very small )) ) ) z y x

21
3-Query Dictator-vs.-quasirandom Testing Upper Bound using NTW f ( NTW ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Test: Choose triple (x, y, z) from D n. D = w. prob. xixi yiyi zizi = Solution: Don’t take ± = 0! )) ) ) z y x

22
3-Query Dictator-vs.-quasirandom Testing Upper Bound using NTW f ( NTW ( 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Test: Choose triple (x, y, z) from D ± n. D = w. prob. xixi yiyi zizi = )) ) ) z y x ± D = ± Fact: (1 – ± ) D + ± D XOR EQU Equivalent test: 1. Form “random restriction” f w with ¤ -probability 1 – ±. 2. Do BLR test on f w, but also accept (0,0,0).

23
Analyzing the Test Pr[acc. odd f] · Håstad’s term: · ± when f is ( ± 2, ± 2 )-quasirandom Handle with careful use of the “hypercontractive inequality” Long story short: last term always

24
Open Problems

25
Prove Max-3CSP is 1 vs. 5/8 + ² hard. Prove Max-3CSP is 1 vs. 5/8 + ² hard assuming Khot’s 2-to-1 Conjecture. Tackle Max-2Sat. [cf. Austrin07a, Austrin07b] Max-4CSP? Open Problems

Similar presentations

OK

Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.

Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To ensure the functioning of the site, we use **cookies**. We share information about your activities on the site with our partners and Google partners: social networks and companies engaged in advertising and web analytics. For more information, see the Privacy Policy and Google Privacy & Terms.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.

Ads by Google

Ppt on schottky diode Convert word doc to ppt online viewer Ppt on different types of occupations pictures Ppt on as 14 amalgamation and capital Ppt on spices industry Ppt on do's and don'ts of group discussion techniques E paper display ppt online Ppt on different types of forests lesson Ppt on 8 wonders of the world Ppt on h1n1 swine flu