ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
3-bit dictator testing: 1 vs. 5/8
Full text PdfPdf (525 KB)
Source Symposium on Discrete Algorithms archive
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM -SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms table of contents
New York, New York
Pages 365-373  
Year of Publication: 2009
Authors
Ryan O'Donnell  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Yi Wu  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Publisher
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics  Philadelphia, PA, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 48,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

In the conclusion of his monumental paper on optimal inapproximability results, Håstad [13] suggested that Fourier analysis of Dictator (Long Code) Tests may not be universally applicable in the study of CSPs. His main open question was to determine if the technique could resolve the approximability of satisfiable 3-bit constraint satisfaction problems. In particular, he asked if the "Not Two" (NTW) predicate is non-approximable beyond the random assignment threshold of 5/8 on satisfiable instances. Around the same time, Zwick [30] showed that all satisfiable 3-CSPs are 5/8-approximable and conjectured that the 5/8 is optimal.

In this work we show that Fourier analysis techniques can produce a Dictator Test based on NTW with completeness 1 and soundness 5/8. Our test's analysis uses the Bonami-Gross-Beckner hypercontractive inequality. We also show a soundness lower bound of 5/8 for all 3-query Dictator Tests with perfect completeness. This lower bound for Property Testing is proved in part via a semidefinite programming algorithm of Zwick [30].

Our work precisely determines the 3-query "Dictatorship Testing gap". Although this represents progress on Zwick's conjecture, current PCP "outer verifier" technology is insufficient to convert our Dictator Test into an NP-hardness-of-approximation result.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
A. Bonami. Ensembles Λ(p) dans le dual de D. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 18(2):193--204, 1968.
4
 
5
 
6
M. Furst, J. Saxe, and M. Sipser. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Systems Theory, 17(1):13--27, 1984.
 
7
B. Green. Finite field models in additive combinatorics. In London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, volume 324. 2005.
 
8
L. Gross. Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities. Amer. J. Math., 97:1061--1083, 1975.
 
9
 
10
V. Guruswami, D. Lewin, M. Sudan, and L. Trevisan. A tight characterization of NP with 3 query PCPs. Electronic Colloq. on Comp. Complexity (ECCC), 5(34), 1998.
11
 
12
J. Håastad. Clique is hard to approximate within n1 - ε. Acta Mathematica, 182(1):105--142, 1999.
13
 
14
J. Håastad. On nontrivial approximations of CSPs, 2006. http://www.nada.kth.se/~johanh/approx06.pdf. Invited address at APPROX.
 
15
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
R. O'Donnell. Analysis of boolean functions lecture notes, 2007. www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/booleananalysis/lecture4.pdf.
23
 
24
25
26
 
27
D. Stefankovic. Fourier transforms in computer science. Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 2002.
 
28
L. Trevisan. Approximating satisfiable satisfiability problems. Algorithmica, 28(1):145--172, 2000.
 
29
 
30
 
31