Consistency Tests - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 25
About This Presentation
Title:

Consistency Tests

Description:

No Slide Title – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:29
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Elad8
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Consistency Tests


1
Consistency Tests

for low degree polynomials
2
Introduction
  • In this chapter we examine consistency tests, and
    trying to improve their parameters
  • reducing the number of variables accessed by the
    test.
  • reducing the variables range.
  • reducing error probability.
  • We present the tests
  • Points-on-Line
  • Line-vs.-Point
  • Plane-vs.-Plane

3
Basic Terms
V from PCPD, V, ?)
  • The Basic Terms
  • Representation ?.
  • ?. is a set of variables, for which a value is
    assigned,
  • The values are in the range 2v,
  • The values correspond to a single, polynomial ƒ
    ? a ? of global degree r

4
Basic Terms
  • Test
  • A set of Boolean functions (local tests)
  • Each depends on at most D representations
    variables.

D from PCPD, V, ?)
5
Basic Terms
  • Consistency
  • Measures an amount of conformation between the
    different values assigned to the representation
    variables.
  • We say that the values are consistent if they
    satisfy at least an ?-fraction of the local tests.

6
Affine subspaces
  • Let us define some specific affine subspaces
    of?
  • lines(?) is the set of all lines (affine
    subspaces of dimension 1) of ?
  • planes(?) is the set of all planes (affine
    subspaces of dimension 2) of ?

7
Overview of the Tests
  • In each tests the variables in ?. represent
    some aspect of the given polynomial f, such as
  • fs values on points of ?
  • fs restriction to a line in ?
  • fs restriction to a plane in ?
  • The local-tests check compatibility between the
    values of different variables in ?..

8
Simple Test Points-on-Line
  • Representation
  • ?. has one variable ?p for each point p??.
  • The variables are supposedly assigned the value
    ƒ(p)
  • Hence the range of the variables is v
    log ?

9
Points-on-Line Test
  • Test
  • Theres one local-test for each line l?lines(?).
  • Each test depends on all points of l (altogether
    2r points).
  • A test accepts if and only if the values are
    consistent with a single degree-r univariate
    polynomial

10
Points-on-Line Consistency
Alas, each local-test depends on a non constant
number of variables (2r)
  • Def An assignment to ? is said to be globally
    consistent if values on most points agree with a
    single, global degree-r polynomial.
  • ThmRuSu If a large (constant) fraction of the
    local-tests accept, then there is a polynomial ƒ
    (of degree-r) which agrees with the assigned
    values on most points.

11
Next Test Line-vs.-Point
  • Representation
  • ?. has one variable ?p for each point p??,
    supposedly assigned ƒ(p),
  • Plus, one variable ?l for each line l?lines(?),
    supposedly assigned ƒ s restriction to l.

Hence the range of ?l is all degree-r
univariate polys
12
Line-vs.-Point Test
  • Test
  • Theres one local-test for each pair of
  • a line l ? lines(?), and
  • a point p ? l .
  • A test accepts if the value assigned to ?p
    equals the value of the polynomial assigned to
    ?l on the point p.

13
Global Consistency Constant Error
  • Thm AS,ALMSS Probability of finding
    inconsistency, between value for ?p and value
    for line ?l on p, is high (constant) ,
  • unlessmost lines and most points agree with a
    single, global degree-r polynomial.
  • Here D O(1) V (r1) log? ? constant.

14
Can the Test Be Improved?
  • Can error-probability be made smaller than
    constant (such as 1/log(n) ), while keeping each
    local-test depending on constant number of
    representation variables?

15
Whats the problem?
  • Adversary randomly partition variables into k
    sets, each consistent with a distinct degree-r
    polynomialThis would cause the local-tests
    success probability to be at least k-(D-1).
  • (if all variables fall within the same set in the
    partition)

16
Consequently
  • One therefore must further weaken the notion of
    global consistency sought after still, making
    sure it can be applied in order to deduce PCP
    characterization of NP .

17
Limited Pluralism
  • Def Given an assignment to ?s variables,a
    degree-r polynomial ƒ is said to be?-permissible
    if it is consistent with at least a ? fraction of
    the values assigned.
  • Global Consistency assignments values
    consistent with any ?-permissible ƒ are
    acceptable.

18
Limited Pluralism - Cont.
  • Formally
  • Def A local test is said to err (with respect to
    ?) if it accepts values that are NOT consistent
    with any ?-permissible degree-r ƒ s.

19
Limited Pluralism - Cont.
  • Note that the adversarys randomly partition does
    not trick the test this time
  • If the test accepts when all the variables are
    from a set consistent with an r-degree
    polynomial, then the polynomial is really
    ?-permissible.

20
Plane-vs.-Plane Representation
  • Representation
  • ?. has one variable ?p for each plane
    p?planes(?),
  • supposedly assigned the restriction of f to p.

Hence the range of ?p is all degree-r
two-variables polys
21
Plane-vs.-Plane Representation
22
Plane-vs.-Plane Test
That is, a pair of plains intersecting by a
line
  • Test
  • Theres one local-test for each line l?lines(?)
    and a pair of planes p1,p2?planes(?) such that
    l?p1 and l?p2
  • A test accepts if and only if the value of ?p1
    restricted to l equals the value of ?p2
    restricted to l.
  • Here DO(1), v2(r1)2log?.

23
Plane-vs.-Plane Consistency
  • ThmRaSaAs long as ? ³?-c for some constant
    1 gt c gt 0, a local test err (w.r.t. ?) with a
    very small probability, namely ?c for some
    constant 1 gt c gt 0.

24
Plane-vs.-Plane Consistency - Cont.
  • The theorem states that, the plane-vs.-plane
    test, with very high probability
  • (³ 1 - ?c), either rejects, or accepts values
    of a ?-permissible polynomial .

25
Summary
  • We examined consistency tests, Points-on-Line,Line
    -vs.-Point and Plane-vs.-Plane.
  • By weakening to ?-permissible definition, we
    achieve an error probability which is below
    constant.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com