Refining the Adaptivity Notion in the Huge Object Model
June 28, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π International Workshop and International Workshop on Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Tomer Adar, Eldar Fischer
arXiv ID
2306.16129
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Citations
4
Venue
International Workshop and International Workshop on Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
The Huge Object model for distribution testing, first defined by Goldreich and Ron in 2022, combines the features of classical string testing and distribution testing. In this model we are given access to independent samples from an unknown distribution $P$ over the set of strings $\{0,1\}^n$, but are only allowed to query a few bits from the samples. The distinction between adaptive and non-adaptive algorithms, which occurs naturally in the realm of string testing (while being irrelevant for classical distribution testing), plays a substantial role also in the Huge Object model. In this work we show that the full picture in the Huge Object model is much richer than just that of the ``adaptive vs. non-adaptive'' dichotomy. We define and investigate several models of adaptivity that lie between the fully-adaptive and the completely non-adaptive extremes. These models are naturally grounded by observing the querying process from each sample independently, and considering the ``algorithmic flow'' between them. For example, if we allow no information at all to cross over between samples (up to the final decision), then we obtain the locally bounded adaptive model, arguably the ``least adaptive'' one apart from being completely non-adaptive. A slightly stronger model allows only a ``one-way'' information flow. Even stronger (but still far from being fully adaptive) models follow by taking inspiration from the setting of streaming algorithms. To show that we indeed have a hierarchy, we prove a chain of exponential separations encompassing most of the models that we define.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Data Structures & Algorithms
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Route Planning in Transportation Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Hierarchical Clustering: Objective Functions and Algorithms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time
π
π
The Cartographer
Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted