Lower Bounds for Tolerant Junta and Unateness Testing via Rejection Sampling of Graphs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a new model for testing graph properties which we call the \emph{rejection sampling model}. We show that testing bipartiteness of $n$-nodes graphs using rejection sampling queries requires complexity $\widetildeΩ(n^2)$. Via reductions from the rejection sampling model, we give three new lower bounds for tolerant testing of Boolean functions of the form $f\colon\{0,1\}^n\to \{0,1\}$: $\bullet$Tolerant $k$-junta testing with \emph{non-adaptive} queries requires $\widetildeΩ(k^2)$ queries. $\bullet$Tolerant unateness testing requires $\widetildeΩ(n)$ queries. $\bullet$Tolerant unateness testing with \emph{non-adaptive} queries requires $\widetildeΩ(n^{3/2})$ queries. Given the $\widetilde{O}(k^{3/2})$-query non-adaptive junta tester of Blais \cite{B08}, we conclude that non-adaptive tolerant junta testing requires more queries than non-tolerant junta testing. In addition, given the $\widetilde{O}(n^{3/4})$-query unateness tester of Chen, Waingarten, and Xie \cite{CWX17b} and the $\widetilde{O}(n)$-query non-adaptive unateness tester of Baleshzar, Chakrabarty, Pallavoor, Raskhodnikova, and Seshadhri \cite{BCPRS17}, we conclude that tolerant unateness testing requires more queries than non-tolerant unateness testing, in both adaptive and non-adaptive settings. These lower bounds provide the first separation between tolerant and non-tolerant testing for a natural property of Boolean functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it