Source author record

Jonathan Lenchner

Jonathan Lenchner appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Artificial Intelligence Computation and Language Computational Complexity Computational Geometry Data Structures and Algorithms math.CO math.LO

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works

7topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

On the Number of Quantifiers as a Complexity Measure

In 1981, Neil Immerman described a two-player game, which he called the "separability game" \cite{Immerman81}, that captures the number of quantifiers needed to describe a property in first-order logic. Immerman's paper laid the groundwork for studying the number of quantifiers needed to express properties in first-order logic, but the game seemed to be too complicated to study, and the arguments of the paper almost exclusively used quantifier rank as a lower bound on the total number of quantifiers. However, last year Fagin, Lenchner, Regan and Vyas rediscovered the games, provided some tools for analyzing them, and showed how to utilize them to characterize the number of quantifiers needed to express linear orders of different sizes. In this paper, we push forward in the study of number of quantifiers as a bona fide complexity measure by establishing several new results. First we carefully distinguish minimum number of quantifiers from the more usual descriptive complexity measures, minimum quantifier rank and minimum number of variables. Then, for each positive integer $k$, we give an explicit example of a property of finite structures (in particular, of finite graphs) that can be expressed with a sentence of quantifier rank $k$, but where the same property needs $2^{Ω(k^2)}$ quantifiers to be expressed.

preprint2020arXiv

A Finitist's Manifesto: Do we need to Reformulate the Foundations of Mathematics?

There is a problem with the foundations of classical mathematics, and potentially even with the foundations of computer science, that mathematicians have by-and-large ignored. This essay is a call for practicing mathematicians who have been sleep-walking in their infinitary mathematical paradise to take heed. Much of mathematics relies upon either (i) the "existence'" of objects that contain an infinite number of elements, (ii) our ability, "in theory", to compute with an arbitrary level of precision, or (iii) our ability, "in theory", to compute for an arbitrarily large number of time steps. All of calculus relies on the notion of a limit. The monumental results of real and complex analysis rely on a seamless notion of the "continuum" of real numbers, which extends in the plane to the complex numbers and gives us, among other things, "rigorous" definitions of continuity, the derivative, various different integrals, as well as the fundamental theorems of calculus and of algebra -- the former of which says that the derivative and integral can be viewed as inverse operations, and the latter of which says that every polynomial over $\mathbb{C}$ has a complex root. This essay is an inquiry into whether there is any way to assign meaning to the notions of "existence" and "in theory'" in (i) to (iii) above.

preprint2020arXiv

On a Generalization of the Marriage Problem

We present a generalization of the marriage problem underlying Hall's famous Marriage Theorem to what we call the Symmetric Marriage Problem, a problem that can be thought of as a special case of Maximal Weighted Bipartite Matching. We show that there is a solution to the Symmetric Marriage Problem if and only if a variation on Hall's Condition holds on each of the bipartitions. We prove both finite and infinite versions of this result and provide applications. We also introduce a non-bipartite version of the problem and show that a generalization of Tutte's Theorem applies.

preprint2016arXiv

Connectivity graphs of uncertainty regions

We study connectivity relations among points, where the precise location of each input point lies in a region of uncertainty. We distinguish two fundamental scenarios under which uncertainty arises. In the favorable Best-Case Uncertainty (BU), each input point can be chosen from a given set to yield the best possible objective value. In the unfavorable Worst-Case Uncertainty (WU), the input set has worst possible objective value among all possible point locations, which are uncertain due, for example, to imprecise data. We consider these notions of uncertainty for the bottleneck spanning tree problem, giving rise to the following Best-Case Connectivity with Uncertainty (BCU) problem: Given a family of geometric regions, choose one point per region, such that the longest edge length of an associated geometric spanning tree is minimized. We show that this problem is NP-hard even for very simple scenarios in which the regions are line segments or squares. On the other hand, we give an exact solution for the case in which there are n+k regions, where k of the regions are line segments and n of the regions are fixed points. We then give approximation algorithms for cases where the regions are either all line segments or all unit discs. We also provide approximation methods for the corresponding Worst-Case Connectivity with Uncertainty (WCU) problem: Given a set of uncertainty regions, find the minimal distance r such that for any choice of points, one per region, there is a spanning tree among the points with edge length at most r.

preprint2014arXiv

Analysis of Watson's Strategies for Playing Jeopardy!

Major advances in Question Answering technology were needed for IBM Watson to play Jeopardy! at championship level -- the show requires rapid-fire answers to challenging natural language questions, broad general knowledge, high precision, and accurate confidence estimates. In addition, Jeopardy! features four types of decision making carrying great strategic importance: (1) Daily Double wagering; (2) Final Jeopardy wagering; (3) selecting the next square when in control of the board; (4) deciding whether to attempt to answer, i.e., "buzz in." Using sophisticated strategies for these decisions, that properly account for the game state and future event probabilities, can significantly boost a players overall chances to win, when compared with simple "rule of thumb" strategies. This article presents our approach to developing Watsons game-playing strategies, comprising development of a faithful simulation model, and then using learning and Monte-Carlo methods within the simulator to optimize Watsons strategic decision-making. After giving a detailed description of each of our game-strategy algorithms, we then focus in particular on validating the accuracy of the simulators predictions, and documenting performance improvements using our methods. Quantitative performance benefits are shown with respect to both simple heuristic strategies, and actual human contestant performance in historical episodes. We further extend our analysis of human play to derive a number of valuable and counterintuitive examples illustrating how human contestants may improve their performance on the show.