Lower Bounds for Tolerant Junta and Unateness Testing via Rejection Sampling of Graphs
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".