狄彥吾 (Yen-Wu Ti) 華夏技術學院資訊工程系 Property Testing on Combinatorial Objects.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Quantum Versus Classical Proofs and Advice Scott Aaronson Waterloo MIT Greg Kuperberg UC Davis | x {0,1} n ?
Advertisements

Shortest Vector In A Lattice is NP-Hard to approximate
Approximate List- Decoding and Hardness Amplification Valentine Kabanets (SFU) joint work with Russell Impagliazzo and Ragesh Jaiswal (UCSD)
Deterministic vs. Non-Deterministic Graph Property Testing Asaf Shapira Tel-Aviv University Joint work with Lior Gishboliner.
The Communication Complexity of Approximate Set Packing and Covering
Property testing of Tree Regular Languages Frédéric Magniez, LRI, CNRS Michel de Rougemont, LRI, University Paris II.
Christian Sohler | Every Property of Hyperfinite Graphs is Testable Ilan Newman and Christian Sohler.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 15: Approximation Algorithms and Probabilistically Checkable Proofs (PCPs)
PCPs and Inapproximability Introduction. My T. Thai 2 Why Approximation Algorithms  Problems that we cannot find an optimal solution.
Complexity 15-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Hierarchy Theorem.
Complexity 18-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Probabilistic Algorithms.
Computability and Complexity 13-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov The Class NP.
Computational problems, algorithms, runtime, hardness
Proclaiming Dictators and Juntas or Testing Boolean Formulae Michal Parnas Dana Ron Alex Samorodnitsky.
Learning and Fourier Analysis Grigory Yaroslavtsev CIS 625: Computational Learning Theory.
Testing the Diameter of Graphs Michal Parnas Dana Ron.
Testing of Clustering Noga Alon, Seannie Dar Michal Parnas, Dana Ron.
Michael Bender - SUNY Stony Brook Dana Ron - Tel Aviv University Testing Acyclicity of Directed Graphs in Sublinear Time.
Testing Metric Properties Michal Parnas and Dana Ron.
On Proximity Oblivious Testing Oded Goldreich - Weizmann Institute of Science Dana Ron – Tel Aviv University.
Analysis of Algorithms CS 477/677
Computational Complexity, Physical Mapping III + Perl CIS 667 March 4, 2004.
On Testing Convexity and Submodularity Michal Parnas Dana Ron Ronitt Rubinfeld.
1 Algorithmic Aspects in Property Testing of Dense Graphs Oded Goldreich – Weizmann Institute Dana Ron - Tel-Aviv University.
1 On the Benefits of Adaptivity in Property Testing of Dense Graphs Joint works with Mira Gonen and Oded Goldreich Dana Ron Tel-Aviv University.
1 INTRODUCTION NP, NP-hardness Approximation PCP.
Christian Sohler 1 University of Dortmund Testing Expansion in Bounded Degree Graphs Christian Sohler University of Dortmund (joint work with Artur Czumaj,
Chapter 11: Limitations of Algorithmic Power
1 Constructing Pseudo-Random Permutations with a Prescribed Structure Moni Naor Weizmann Institute Omer Reingold AT&T Research.
Complexity ©D. Moshkovitz 1 And Randomized Computations The Polynomial Hierarchy.
1 CSE 417: Algorithms and Computational Complexity Winter 2001 Lecture 22 Instructor: Paul Beame.
1 Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz. Adapted from things beyond us.
Some 3CNF Properties are Hard to Test Eli Ben-Sasson Harvard & MIT Prahladh Harsha MIT Sofya Raskhodnikova MIT.
Of 28 Probabilistically Checkable Proofs Madhu Sudan Microsoft Research June 11, 2015TIFR: Probabilistically Checkable Proofs1.
Correlation testing for affine invariant properties on Shachar Lovett Institute for Advanced Study Joint with Hamed Hatami (McGill)
Approximating the MST Weight in Sublinear Time Bernard Chazelle (Princeton) Ronitt Rubinfeld (NEC) Luca Trevisan (U.C. Berkeley)
Computational Complexity Polynomial time O(n k ) input size n, k constant Tractable problems solvable in polynomial time(Opposite Intractable) Ex: sorting,
Nattee Niparnan. Easy & Hard Problem What is “difficulty” of problem? Difficult for computer scientist to derive algorithm for the problem? Difficult.
Ragesh Jaiswal Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Threshold Direct Product Theorems: a survey.
Tonga Institute of Higher Education Design and Analysis of Algorithms IT 254 Lecture 8: Complexity Theory.
Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.
CSE 3813 Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata Chapter 14 An Introduction to Computational Complexity These class notes are based on material from.
1 Lower Bounds Lower bound: an estimate on a minimum amount of work needed to solve a given problem Examples: b number of comparisons needed to find the.
PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION By Remanth Dabbati. INDEX  Probabilistic Turing Machine  Probabilistic Complexity Classes  Probabilistic Algorithms.
Heuristic Optimization Methods Greedy algorithms, Approximation algorithms, and GRASP.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2 Cook ’ s Theorem (1971) Prof. Cook Toronto U. Receiving Turing Award (1982) Discussing difficult problems: worst case.
1 Approximate Schemas and Data Exchange Michel de Rougemont University Paris II & LRI Joint work with Adrien Vielleribière, University Paris-South.
Testing the independence number of hypergraphs
1/19 Minimizing weighted completion time with precedence constraints Nikhil Bansal (IBM) Subhash Khot (NYU)
1 Decomposition into bipartite graphs with minimum degree 1. Raphael Yuster.
Fundamentals of Informatics Lecture 14 Intractability and NP-completeness Bas Luttik.
NP-Completness Turing Machine. Hard problems There are many many important problems for which no polynomial algorithms is known. We show that a polynomial-time.
Locally Testable Codes and Caylay Graphs Parikshit Gopalan (MSR-SVC) Salil Vadhan (Harvard) Yuan Zhou (CMU)
Complexity and Efficient Algorithms Group / Department of Computer Science Testing the Cluster Structure of Graphs Christian Sohler joint work with Artur.
Lecture. Today Problem set 9 out (due next Thursday) Topics: –Complexity Theory –Optimization versus Decision Problems –P and NP –Efficient Verification.
NP ⊆ PCP(n 3, 1) Theory of Computation. NP ⊆ PCP(n 3,1) What is that? NP ⊆ PCP(n 3,1) What is that?
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing QIC 710 / CS 667 / PH 767 / CO 681 / AM 871 Richard Cleve DC 2117 Lectures
COSC 3101A - Design and Analysis of Algorithms 14 NP-Completeness.
The NP class. NP-completeness Lecture2. The NP-class The NP class is a class that contains all the problems that can be decided by a Non-Deterministic.
Complexity and Efficient Algorithms Group / Department of Computer Science Testing the Cluster Structure of Graphs Christian Sohler joint work with Artur.
Expanders and Ramanujan Graphs Mike Krebs, Cal State LA For slideshow: click “Research and Talks” from
Complexity Theory and Explicit Constructions of Ramsey Graphs Rahul Santhanam University of Edinburgh.
The NP class. NP-completeness
P & NP.
On Sample Based Testers
Property Testing (a.k.a. Sublinear Algorithms )
Approximating the MST Weight in Sublinear Time
Speaker: Chuang-Chieh Lin National Chung Cheng University
Lecture 18: Uniformity Testing Monotonicity Testing
Complexity Theory: Foundations
Presentation transcript:

狄彥吾 (Yen-Wu Ti) 華夏技術學院資訊工程系 Property Testing on Combinatorial Objects

Preliminaries. Testing of digraph property. Testing of group property. Our plan to construct a tester. Publications. Outline

The general notion of property testing is first formulated by Rubinfeld and Sudan (1996). The basic idea of property testing

Property testing emerges naturally in the context of program checking and probabilistically checkable proofs (PCP). This paradigm is followed in the theory of program checking by Blum, Luby and Rubinfeld (1993). Property testing and PCP

An improved lower bound for the efficient approximability of many optimization problems studied previously (see Håstad (1997)). An approach takes an atomic verification procedure and then iterates it several times, saving queries by recycling them between different iterations of the atomic test (see Trevisan (1998)). Property testing and PCP—related works

The class of decision problems such that a "yes" answer can be verified by a probabilistically checkable proof, as follows. The verifier is a polynomial-time Turing machine with access to O(r(n)) uniformly random bits. It has random access to a proof (which might be exponentially long), but can query only O(q(n)) bits of the proof. Probabilistically Checkable Proof (PCP) 1

Then we require the following: 1.If the answer is “yes,” there exists a proof such that the verifier accepts with certainty. 2.If the answer is "no," then for all proofs the verifier rejects with probability at least 1/2 (over the choice of the O(r(n)) random bits). Probabilistically Checkable Proof (PCP) 2

Let Π be a fixed property of functions, and f be an unknown function. Our goal is to determine (possibly probabilistically) if f has property Π or if it is far from any function that has property Π. We are given examples of the form (x; f(x)), where x is distributed according to the uniform probability distribution. Question of property testing (I)

We are allowed to query f on instances of our choice. The complexity measures we focus on are the query complexity (the number of function queries made) and the running time of the tester. Question of property testing (II)

We believe that property testing is a natural notion whose relevance to applications goes beyond program checking. Property testing is an interesting topic

We study property testing as applied to group properties and graph properties. We hope to derive extremely fast algorithms for testing natural properties. We only consider the uniform probability distribution on these combinatorial objects, as well as the consideration of algorithms that only obtain samples randomly. Property testing on combinatorial objects

Goldreich, Goldwasser and Ron showed that certain individual graph properties, like k-colorability, admit an ε-test. Alon, Fischer, Krivelevich and Szegedy use this theorem to prove that first order graph properties not containing a quantifier alternation of type `` '' are always testable. Efficient Testing of Large Graphs

A generator set for a finite group is a subset of the group's elements such that repeated multiplications of the generators alone can produce all the group elements. A generator set with size k is called a k-generator set. The number of generators of an abelian finite group (I)

We can transform a complete graph K into a quasigroup Q. Babai and Erdös prove that the number of the generators of Q is the lower bound of the size of a specific subset of a one- factorization of K. The union of the elements of this subset is a connected graph.(see Babai and Erdös (1982)). The number of generators of an abelian finite group (II)

Sometimes it is easy to find the number of generators of a non-abelian group (see Menegazzo (2003)). We plan to investigate testing whether an abelian group has a k-generator set. The number of generators of an abelian finite group (III)

In both cases one is given access to an unknown target function. The goal of a learning algorithm is to find a good approximation to the target function. A testing algorithm should only determine whether the target function is in a predetermined function class or is far away from it. Property testing and learning theory (I)

Goldreich, Goldwasser and Ron show that the relation between learning and testing is nontrivial (see Goldreich, Goldwasser and Ron (1998)). There are function classes for which testing is harder than learning, provided that NP is not a subset of BPP. Property testing and learning theory (II)

Let Π be a property of digraphs, that is, a family of digraphs closed under isomorphism. Let 0< ε <1, a digraph G = (V, E) is ε-close to having property Π if there exists a digraph G’ = (V, E’) having property Π such that the symmetric difference between E and E’ is at most ε(|V| choose 2). We say that a digraph G is ε-far from having property Π if it is not ε-close to having property Π. Property testing on strong connectivity of digraphs (I)

T is an ε-tester for Π if for every G = (V, E) and every ε, the following two conditions hold: (1) if G has property Π, then Pr[ T accepts G] ≧ 2/3; (2) if G is ε-far from having property Π, then Pr[ T accepts G] ≦ 1/3. Property testing on strong connectivity of digraphs (II)

The probability 2/3 can be replaced by any constant smaller than 1 because the algorithm can be repeated if necessary. A graph property is testable if the property has a tester and the total number of queries is o( ). Property testing on strong connectivity of digraphs (III)

Holt and Reingold show that the graph properties of connectivity and the existence of cycles are both Ω( )-evasive (see Holt and Reingold (1972)). For any digraph H, Alon and Shapira discuss the exist of the tester for testing H-freeness in digraphs (see Alon and Shapira (2004)). Research work related to graph property testing

Let G be a group, 。 be the group multiplication and S be a subset of the group's elements not containing the identity element. The Cayley graph associated with S is defined as the digraph having one vertex associated with each group element G and directed edges (g, h) whenever. Reduction between group property and digraph property (I)

The Cayley graph associated with a subset of a group's elements (but not containing the identity element) is strongly connected iff the subset generates the group. Reduction between group property and digraph property (II)

Our plan relies on the strong connectivity of Cayley graphs to test if a finite group-like structure s has a k- generator set. For an input group-like structure s, if we can test whether there exists a k-subset of the groundset of s with a corresponding strongly connected Cayley graph, then we can test whether s has a k-generator set. Reduction between group property and digraph property (III)

A finite group-like structure s is a four-tuple (Γ, 。, i, 1), where Γ is the groundset of s, 。 is a binary operator, i is the inverse operator, and 1 is the identity element. Finite group-like structure

An ε-tester for a property Π is a randomized algorithm that is given a finite group-like structure s and a distance parameter ε. The tester can make queries as to the results of operations on elements of s. ε-tester for a group property (I)

Let the property Π be {si}. Given an upper bound M on the size of the groundset, the tester needs to distinguish with probability at least 2/3 between the case of s having Π and the case of the minimal cost to transform s to any si being at least. In the latter case, s is said to be ε-far from having property Π. ε-tester for a group property (II)

We need to make sure that every instance being ε-far from any instance with property Π={si} will be rejected with high property We would like to have a method to find the lower bound of the distance between any group-like structure and {si}. But for any group-like structure s, it is very difficult to find a group which is close to s. The difficulties in constructing a group property tester (I)

The difficulties in constructing a group property tester (II)

Friedl, Ivanyos and Santha construct a tester which, given a finite group-like structure, tests if it is an abelian group (see Friedl, Ivanyos and Santha (2005)). Blum, Luby and Rubinfeld construct the first homomorphism tester for abelian groups (see Blum, Luby and Rubinfeld (1993)). Research work related to group property testing

Thank You for your attention. Happy weekend to you!