Paper detail

How to refute a random CSP

Let $P$ be a $k$-ary predicate over a finite alphabet. Consider a random CSP$(P)$ instance $I$ over $n$ variables with $m$ constraints. When $m \gg n$ the instance $I$ will be unsatisfiable with high probability, and we want to find a refutation - i.e., a certificate of unsatisfiability. When $P$ is the $3$-ary OR predicate, this is the well studied problem of refuting random $3$-SAT formulas, and an efficient algorithm is known only when $m \gg n^{3/2}$. Understanding the density required for refutation of other predicates is important in cryptography, proof complexity, and learning theory. Previously, it was known that for a $k$-ary predicate, having $m \gg n^{\lceil k/2 \rceil}$ constraints suffices for refutation. We give a criterion for predicates that often yields efficient refutation algorithms at much lower densities. Specifically, if $P$ fails to support a $t$-wise uniform distribution, then there is an efficient algorithm that refutes random CSP$(P)$ instances $I$ whp when $m \gg n^{t/2}$. Indeed, our algorithm will "somewhat strongly" refute $I$, certifying $\mathrm{Opt}(I) \leq 1-Ω_k(1)$, if $t = k$ then we get the strongest possible refutation, certifying $\mathrm{Opt}(I) \leq \mathrm{E}[P] + o(1)$. This last result is new even in the context of random $k$-SAT. Regarding the optimality of our $m \gg n^{t/2}$ requirement, prior work on SDP hierarchies has given some evidence that efficient refutation of random CSP$(P)$ may be impossible when $m \ll n^{t/2}$. Thus there is an indication our algorithm's dependence on $m$ is optimal for every $P$, at least in the context of SDP hierarchies. Along these lines, we show that our refutation algorithm can be carried out by the $O(1)$-round SOS SDP hierarchy. Finally, as an application of our result, we falsify assumptions used to show hardness-of-learning results in recent work of Daniely, Linial, and Shalev-Shwartz.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.