Tight Bounds for Sparsifying Random CSPs
August 18, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Joshua Brakensiek, Venkatesan Guruswami, Aaron Putterman
arXiv ID
2508.13345
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Cross-listed
cs.DM,
math.CO
Citations
1
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
The problem of CSP sparsification asks: for a given CSP instance, what is the sparsest possible reweighting such that for every possible assignment to the instance, the number of satisfied constraints is preserved up to a factor of $1 \pm Ξ΅$? We initiate the study of the sparsification of random CSPs. In particular, we consider two natural random models: the $r$-partite model and the uniform model. In the $r$-partite model, CSPs are formed by partitioning the variables into $r$ parts, with constraints selected by randomly picking one vertex out of each part. In the uniform model, $r$ distinct vertices are chosen at random from the pool of variables to form each constraint. In the $r$-partite model, we exhibit a sharp threshold phenomenon. For every predicate $P$, there is an integer $k$ such that a random instance on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges cannot (essentially) be sparsified if $m \le n^k$ and can be sparsified to size $\approx n^k$ if $m \ge n^k$. Here, $k$ corresponds to the largest copy of the AND which can be found within $P$. Furthermore, these sparsifiers are simple, as they can be constructed by i.i.d. sampling of the edges. In the uniform model, the situation is a bit more complex. For every predicate $P$, there is an integer $k$ such that a random instance on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges cannot (essentially) be sparsified if $m \le n^k$ and can sparsified to size $\approx n^k$ if $m \ge n^{k+1}$. However, for some predicates $P$, if $m \in [n^k, n^{k+1}]$, there may or may not be a nontrivial sparsifier. In fact, we show that there are predicates where the sparsifiability of random instances is non-monotone, i.e., as we add more random constraints, the instances become more sparsifiable. We give a precise (efficiently computable) procedure for determining which situation a specific predicate $P$ falls into.
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