Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Sarah R. Allen

dblp:119/4870 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
5as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 4 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Computational complexity · 58% Computational geometry · 22% Algorithms and data structures · 16%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithms and data structures
dynamic data structures
0.212016
Incremental Voronoi diagrams · SoCG 2016
Computational geometry
voronoi diagram
0.212016
Incremental Voronoi diagrams · SoCG 2016
Computational complexity
constraint satisfaction
0.212015
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015
Computational complexity
proof complexity
0.212015
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction
random constraint satisfaction
0.212015
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015
Computational complexity › constraint satisfaction › random constraint satisfaction
random CSP refutation
0.212015
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015
Computational geometry › triangulation
delaunay triangulation
0.112016
Incremental Voronoi diagrams · SoCG 2016
Logic in computer science
higher-order logic
0.112015
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

combinatorial lower bounds · 0.2amortized analysis · 0.2semidefinite programming hierarchy · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Evaluation of Monotone DNF Formulas
Sarah R. Allen, Lisa Hellerstein, Devorah Kletenik, Tonguç Ünlüyurt
Algorithmica1
2017 Incremental Voronoi Diagrams
Sarah R. Allen, Luis Barba, John Iacono, Stefan Langerman
Discret. Comput. Geom.1
2016 Incremental Voronoi diagrams
abstract
We study the amortized number of combinatorial changes (edge insertions and removals) needed to update the graph structure of the Voronoi diagram VD(S) (and several variants thereof) of a set S of n sites in the plane as sites are added to the set. To that effect, we define a general update operation for planar graphs that can be used to model the incremental construction of several variants of Voronoi diagrams as well as the incremental construction of an intersection of halfspaces in R^3. We show that the amortized number of edge insertions and removals needed to add a new site to the Voronoi diagram is O(n^(1/2)). A matching Omega(n^(1/2)) combinatorial lower bound is shown, even in the case where the graph representing the Voronoi diagram is a tree. This contrasts with the O(log(n)) upper bound of Aronov et al. [Aronov et al., in proc. of LATIN, 2006] for farthest-point Voronoi diagrams in the special case where points are inserted in clockwise order along their convex hull. We then present a semi-dynamic data structure that maintains the Voronoi diagram of a set S of n sites in convex position. This data structure supports the insertion of a new site p (and hence the addition of its Voronoi cell) and finds the asymptotically minimal number K of edge insertions and removals needed to obtain the diagram of S U (p) from the diagram of S, in time O(K polylog n) worst case, which is O(n^(1/2) polylog n) amortized by the aforementioned combinatorial result. The most distinctive feature of this data structure is that the graph of the Voronoi diagram is maintained explicitly at all times and can be retrieved and traversed in the natural way; this contrasts with other known data structures supporting nearest neighbor queries. Our data structure supports general search operations on the current Voronoi diagram, which can, for example, be used to perform point location queries in the cells of the current Voronoi diagram in O(log n) time, or to determine whether two given sites are neighbors in the Delaunay triangulation.
Sarah R. Allen, Luis Barba, John Iacono, Stefan Langerman
SoCG1
2015 How to Refute a Random CSP
abstract
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 ≫ n the instance will be unsatisfiable with high probability and we want to find 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 ≫ n3/2. 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 ≫≫n[k/2]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 whp when m ≫ nt/2. Indeed, our algorithm will “somewhat strongly” refute the instance I, certifying Opt(I) ≤ 1 - Ωk(1). If t = k then we get the strongest possible refutation, certifying Opt(I) ≤ E[P] + o(1). This last result is new even for random k-SAT. Prior work on SDP hierarchies has given some evidence that efficient refutation of random CSP(P) may be impossible when m ≫ nt/2; thus there is an indication that our algorithm's dependence on m is optimal for every P, at least in the context of SDP hierarchies. As an application of our result, we falsify assumptions used to show hardness-of-learning in recent work of Daniely, Linial, and Shalev-Shwartz.
Sarah R. Allen, Ryan O'Donnell, David Witmer
FOCS1
2015 Conditioning and covariance on caterpillars
abstract
Let X1, ..., Xnbe joint {±1}-valued random variables. It is known that conditioning on a random subset of O(1/ε2) of them reduces their average pairwise covariance to below ε (in expectation). We conjecture that O(1/ε2) can be improved to O(1/ε). The motivation for the problem and our conjectured improvement comes from the theory of global correlation rounding for convex relaxation hierarchies. We suggest attempting the conjecture in the case that X1, ..., Xnare the leaves of an information flow tree. We prove the conjecture in the case that the information flow tree is a caterpillar graph (similar to a two-state hidden Markov model).
Sarah R. Allen, Ryan O'Donnell
ITW1