Derandomized DP  Thus far, the DP-test was over sets of size k  For instance, the Z-Test required three random sets: a set of size k, a set of size k-k’

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Completeness and Expressiveness
Advertisements

Russell Impagliazzo ( IAS & UCSD ) Ragesh Jaiswal ( Columbia U. ) Valentine Kabanets ( IAS & SFU ) Avi Wigderson ( IAS ) ( based on [IJKW08, IKW09] )
Direct Product : Decoding & Testing, with Applications Russell Impagliazzo (IAS & UCSD) Ragesh Jaiswal (Columbia) Valentine Kabanets (SFU) Avi Wigderson.
Introduction to Proofs
5.4 Basis And Dimension.
Inapproximability of Hypergraph Vertex-Cover. A k-uniform hypergraph H= : V – a set of vertices E - a collection of k-element subsets of V Example: k=3.
Approximate List- Decoding and Hardness Amplification Valentine Kabanets (SFU) joint work with Russell Impagliazzo and Ragesh Jaiswal (UCSD)
Equivalence Relations
On Complexity, Sampling, and -Nets and -Samples. Range Spaces A range space is a pair, where is a ground set, it’s elements called points and is a family.
Incremental Linear Programming Linear programming involves finding a solution to the constraints, one that maximizes the given linear function of variables.
Gibbs sampler - simple properties It’s not hard to show that this MC chain is aperiodic. Often is reversible distribution. If in addition the chain is.
Lecture 22: April 18 Probabilistic Method. Why Randomness? Probabilistic method: Proving the existence of an object satisfying certain properties without.
Computability and Complexity
The PCP theorem. Summary -Proof structure -Basic ingredients -Arithmetization -Properties of polynomials -3-SAT belongs to PCP[O(n 3 ),O(1)]
1 By Gil Kalai Institute of Mathematics and Center for Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel presented by: Yair Cymbalista.
4 4.3 © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Vector Spaces LINEARLY INDEPENDENT SETS; BASES.
The main idea of the article is to prove that there exist a tester of monotonicity with query and time complexity.
Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
THE DIMENSION OF A VECTOR SPACE
11.Hash Tables Hsu, Lih-Hsing. Computer Theory Lab. Chapter 11P Directed-address tables Direct addressing is a simple technique that works well.
1. 2 Gap-QS[O(1), ,2|  | -1 ] Gap-QS[O(n), ,2|  | -1 ] Gap-QS*[O(1),O(1), ,|  | -  ] Gap-QS*[O(1),O(1), ,|  | -  ] conjunctions of constant.
1 2 Introduction We are going to use several consistency tests for Consistent Readers. We are going to use several consistency tests for Consistent Readers.Consistent.
1 More Applications of the Pumping Lemma. 2 The Pumping Lemma: Given a infinite regular language there exists an integer for any string with length we.
1. 2 Overview Some basic math Error correcting codes Low degree polynomials Introduction to consistent readers and consistency tests H.W.
Orthogonality and Least Squares
6 6.3 © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Orthogonality and Least Squares ORTHOGONAL PROJECTIONS.
1 Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz. Adapted from things beyond us.
1 2 Introduction In this lecture we’ll cover: Definition of strings as functions and vice versa Error correcting codes Low degree polynomials Low degree.
Mathematics1 Mathematics 1 Applied Informatics Štefan BEREŽNÝ.
Maximum Likelihood Estimation
Ch. 8 & 9 – Linear Sorting and Order Statistics What do you trade for speed?
Linear Algebra Chapter 4 Vector Spaces.
Introduction to Proofs
Ragesh Jaiswal Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Threshold Direct Product Theorems: a survey.
AN ORTHOGONAL PROJECTION
Direct-product testing, and a new 2-query PCP Russell Impagliazzo (IAS & UCSD) Valentine Kabanets (SFU) Avi Wigderson (IAS)
Orthogonality and Least Squares
1 Binomial Coefficients CS 202 Epp, section ??? Aaron Bloomfield.
Quantum Computing MAS 725 Hartmut Klauck NTU
5.2 Trees  A tree is a connected graph without any cycles.
1 Chapter 3 – Subspaces of R n and Their Dimension Outline 3.1 Image and Kernel of a Linear Transformation 3.2 Subspaces of R n ; Bases and Linear Independence.
Mathematical Induction
4 4.6 © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Vector Spaces RANK.
Orthonormal Bases; Gram-Schmidt Process; QR-Decomposition
© 2001 by Charles E. Leiserson Introduction to AlgorithmsDay 12 L8.1 Introduction to Algorithms 6.046J/18.401J/SMA5503 Lecture 8 Prof. Charles E. Leiserson.
Linear Program Set Cover. Given a universe U of n elements, a collection of subsets of U, S = {S 1,…, S k }, and a cost function c: S → Q +. Find a minimum.
Class 26: Question 1 1.An orthogonal basis for A 2.An orthogonal basis for the column space of A 3.An orthogonal basis for the row space of A 4.An orthogonal.
NP-completeness Section 7.4 Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 8 RELATIONS.
4.8 Rank Rank enables one to relate matrices to vectors, and vice versa. Definition Let A be an m  n matrix. The rows of A may be viewed as row vectors.
3.6 First Passage Time Distribution
Complexity 24-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Interactive Proofs.
Section 1.7. Definitions A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true using: definitions other theorems axioms (statements which are given as.
1 Distributed Vertex Coloring. 2 Vertex Coloring: each vertex is assigned a color.
4 4.5 © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. Vector Spaces THE DIMENSION OF A VECTOR SPACE.
4 Vector Spaces 4.1 Vector Spaces and Subspaces 4.2 Null Spaces, Column Spaces, and Linear Transformations 4.3 Linearly Independent Sets; Bases 4.4 Coordinate.
MA/CSSE 473 Day 09 Modular Division Revisited Fermat's Little Theorem Primality Testing.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Theory of Computational Complexity M1 Takao Inoshita Iwama & Ito Lab Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University.
6 6.5 © 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd. Orthogonality and Least Squares LEAST-SQUARES PROBLEMS.
1 Section 4.4 Inductive Proof What do we believe about nonempty subsets of N? Since  N, <  is well-founded, and in fact it is linear, it follows that.
Vapnik–Chervonenkis Dimension
Basis and Dimension Basis Dimension Vector Spaces and Linear Systems
Orthogonality and Least Squares
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Affine Spaces Def: Suppose
Quantum Two.
Vector Spaces RANK © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc..
Orthogonality and Least Squares
Approximation of Functions
Presentation transcript:

Derandomized DP  Thus far, the DP-test was over sets of size k  For instance, the Z-Test required three random sets: a set of size k, a set of size k-k’ and a set of size k’  When the input size is exponential in d

Derandomized DP  It is possible to have input size of d and still get all the results (or almost all) as presented in section 3 (with input size of k)  The domain is  The function stays the same:  For example R could be for a Boolean- function

Derandomized DP  The k-wise DP of a function f is:  Where k is all the points in a subspace A  A is a d-dimensional linear subspace of U  Thus, we have points in A with input size of d  Since now, we only need to know the d-vectors that define the subspace A (and not k items of a set A)

Derandomized Z-Test  The operator “+” is:  A and B are subspace of U, a and b are vectors and a+b is the component-wise addition of those vectors  The test requires four random subspaces; d 0 -dimensional subspaces and (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspaces  Where

Derandomized Z-Test  The test is (as presented in the paper) Pick a random d 0 -dimensional subspace A 0 and a random (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspace B 0 of U that is linearly independent from A 0 Pick a random (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspace B 1 of U that is linearly independent from A 0. Reject if., else continue Pick a random d 0 -dimensional subspace A 1 of U that is linearly independent from B 1. Reject if., else accept

Derandomized Z-Test  Theorem 1.2: (equivalent to Theorem 1.1 for the non-derandomized Z-Test) Suppose the derandomized Z-Test accepts with probability , for Then there is a function such that, for each of at least fraction of d-dimensional subspaces S from U, the oracle value C(S) agrees with the direct product for all but at most fraction of elements in S

Section 4 The proof of Theorem 1.2

Derandomized Z-Test  The proof of this Theorem is on section 4  B consistent with a pair (A 0,B 0 )  Where the subspace A 0 is linearly independent from B and B 0  The set (defined as before) – its members are all the B’s that are consistent with a pair (A 0,B 0 )

Good/Excellent pair  Pair (A 0,B 0 ) is good  The size of the set, is at least ;i.e. has a measure at least  Pair (A 0,B 0 ) is ( ,γ)-excellent  The pair (A 0,B 0 ) is good and Where (1) the subspace A 0 is linearly independent from E, D 1 and D 2, and (2) the subspace E is linearly independent from D 1 and D 2 and (3) E is a d 0 -dimensional subspace (as A 0 )

Excellence - Lemma 4.1  Lemma 4.1 (analogues of Lemma 3.2) – Assume that Then a random pair (A 0,B 0 ) is good with probability at least  Proof: Nothing really changed from the proof of Lemma 3.2

Excellence - Lemma 4.2  Lemma 4.2 (analogues of Lemma 3.3) – where  Proof: (1) Let the event be the event  good but not excellent; i.e. the pair (A 0,B 0 ) is good and

Excellence - Lemma 4.2  Proof – continue: (2) Let the event  (A 0,B 0 ) is good and and (3) By using Lemma 2.2 we get (4) According to (2) + (1) 

Excellence - Lemma 4.2  Proof – continue: (5) According to (3) - then it is clear that (6) Since, then according to (4) + (5) we’ll get:

Excellence - Corollary 4.3  Corollary 4.3 (analogues of Corollary 3.4) – Assume that Then we have where  and γ are such that  Proof: By using Lemma 4.2 and where

Excellence implies Local Agreement Subsection 4.2

Subsection 4.2 – Local Agreement  In this section we set: ( for some fixed ) Cons to be A 0 and E are d 0 -dimensional subspaces D 1 and D 2 are (d-2d 0 )-dimensional subspaces The function g is now:

Local Agreement - Lemma 4.4  Lemma 4.4 (analogues of Lemma 3.5) – There are fewer than fraction of. such as that for more than fraction of  Proof by contradiction: By assuming that

Local Agreement - Lemma 4.4  Proof – continue:  Since is excellent and therefore is good then we can assume now that also  From now on, the sampling procedures are changing, thus instead of taking one subspace to be linearly independent from the other one we will take the subspace to be orthogonal to the other one

Sampling Procedure  For every d 0 -dimensional subspace A 0, thus A 0  U. The set of all the vectors orthogonal to A 0 is a subspace of U, we denote this set as  Denote a subspace orthogonal to A 0  Every subspace B  has an orthogonal basis B’ where. and thus we may define S i as the equivalence class:

Sampling Procedure  For every subspace B linearly independent from A 0, let B  denote the dual of A 0 inside A 0 +B  Since B is also a subspace it has as well an orthogonal basis B’, thus  Therefore –  For those subspaces B, we may define T i as the equivalence class:

Sampling Procedure  The claims refer to any random event E (B) which depends on the subspace A 0 +B rather then B itself  Thus the probability of the this event is the same when- We uniformly choose a subspace B linearly independent from A 0 Or when we uniformly choose a subspace B orthogonal to A 0

Sampling Procedure  Set B : all the (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspaces linearly independent from A 0 thus Cons  B  Set B  : all the (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspaces orthogonal to A 0  Defining Cons  = Cons  B 

Sampling Procedure  Claim |Cons|/| B | = |Cons  |/| B  |  Proof:

Sampling Procedure  Set B x : all the (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspaces linearly independent from A 0 such as that  Defining Cons x  Cons  B x  Claim |Cons x |/| B x | = |(Cons x )  |/|( B x )  |  Proof: Proved for every

Sampling Procedure  Set B E : all the (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspaces linearly independent from A 0 and contain the subspace E  Set ( B E )  : all the (d-d 0 )-dimensional subspaces orthogonal to A 0 that contain E   Defining Cons E  Cons  B E  Defining (Cons E )   Cons  ( B E ) 

Sampling Procedure  Claim |Cons E |/| B E | = |(Cons E )  |/|( B E )  |  Proof: Pretty much the same as the others… so I’ll skip it

Sampling Procedure  Say a pair (A 0,B 0 ) is good for a subspace B 0 linearly independent from A 0 then Cons has a measure of μ  By using claim 4.5, since there is B  such as that., we will get that Cons  has also a measure of μ  Thus, if the pair (A 0,B 0 ) is good then also the pair (A 0,B  ) is good

Sampling Procedure  For an pair, the measure of Cons  stays the same, and by using claim 4.7 the probability in the equation  The definition of function g(x) stays the same by using claim 4.6

Sampling Procedure  Since good, excellent and g(x) remains the same we may use this method of sampling in order to prove Lemma 4.4  Thus, assuming and since also good (previews slide) then by assuming we will get a contradiction

Proof of lemma 4.4  Claims 4.8 – 4.12 are needed for this proof and they are analogue of Claims respectively  Claim 4.8 – For all but at most fraction of the input, we have |Cons x |/| B x |  Proof: Referring to ( B x )  as B x and to Cons x as (Cons x )  and proving it to at most fractions

Proof of lemma 4.4  Claim 4.9 – Let x be any input such as that Cons x has measure at least  /6 in B x. Then for all but at most fraction of linear subspace E orthogonal to A 0 as such that, we get that  Proof:

Proof of lemma 4.4  Claim 4.10 – For, where E is a random d 0 -dimensinal linear subspace orthogonal to A 0  Proof: By using claim 4.8 and 4.9, for x where x  A 0 +E such as that Cons x is large.

Proof of lemma 4.4  Claim 4.11 – For, where E is a random d 0 -dimensinal linear subspace orthogonal to A 0  Proof: If we have enough time…

Proof of lemma 4.4  Claim 4.12 – For all but at most fraction of d 0 -dimensinal linear subspaces E, orthogonal to A 0, we have |Cons E |/| B E |  Proof: Analogue of Claim 4.8, almost the same proof, but except of choosing x such as x  A 0 +E, we pick E – a random d 0 -dimensinal linear subspace orthogonal to A 0

Proof of lemma 4.4  Proof:

Local Agreement implies Global Agreement Subsection 4.3 – The proof of theorem 1.2

Global Agreement - Lemma 4.13  Lemma 4.13 (analogues of Lemma 3.13) – If the derandomized Z-test accepts with probability at least , then there is a function g: U → R such as that for at least  ’=  /4 fraction of all subspaces S, the oracle C(S) agrees with g(S) in all but at most  ’=81  fraction of points  Proof: