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

David Witmer

dblp:80/11265 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 6

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
4 papers
Computational complexity · 78% Graph algorithms and graph theory · 15% Approximation and online algorithms · 5%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 100%

Topics — the 13 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity
proof complexity
0.732017
Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP · STOC 2017
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015
Goldreich's PRG: Evidence for Near-Optimal Polynomial Stretch · CCC 2014
Computational complexity
constraint satisfaction
0.522017
Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP · STOC 2017
How to Refute a Random CSP · FOCS 2015
Computational complexity › proof complexity
CSP refutation
0.312017
Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP · STOC 2017
Computational complexity › proof complexity
refutation
0.312017
Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP · STOC 2017
Computational complexity › proof complexity › proof size lower bounds
sum-of-squares lower bounds
0.312017
Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP · STOC 2017
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
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
pseudorandom generators
0.212014
Goldreich's PRG: Evidence for Near-Optimal Polynomial Stretch · CCC 2014
Graph algorithms and graph theory › graph theory › graph parameters › graph width parameters › treewidth
bounded treewidth
0.212013
Sparsest cut on bounded treewidth graphs: algorithms and hardness results · STOC 2013
Graph algorithms and graph theory
graph partitioning
0.212013
Sparsest cut on bounded treewidth graphs: algorithms and hardness results · STOC 2013
Approximation and online algorithms
sparsest cut
0.212013
Sparsest cut on bounded treewidth graphs: algorithms and hardness results · STOC 2013
Graph algorithms and graph theory › graph theory › graph parameters › graph width parameters
treewidth
0.212013
Sparsest cut on bounded treewidth graphs: algorithms and hardness results · STOC 2013
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

sherali-adams · 0.4lasserre hierarchy · 0.4fourier analysis · 0.4sum-of-squares · 0.3semidefinite programming hierarchy · 0.2approximation algorithm · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP
abstract
Let P:{0,1}k → {0,1} be a nontrivial k-ary predicate. Consider a random instance of the constraint satisfaction problem (P) on n variables with Δ n constraints, each being P applied to k randomly chosen literals. Provided the constraint density satisfies Δ ≫ 1, such an instance is unsatisfiable with high probability. The refutation problem is to efficiently find a proof of unsatisfiability.
Pravesh Kothari, Ryuhei Mori, Ryan O'Donnell, David Witmer
STOC4
2016 Lower Bounds for CSP Refutation by SDP Hierarchies
Ryuhei Mori, David Witmer
APPROX-RANDOM2
2015 Beating the Random Assignment on Constraint Satisfaction Problems of Bounded Degree
abstract
We show that for any odd k and any instance I of the max-kXOR constraint satisfaction problem, there is an efficient algorithm that finds an assignment satisfying at least a 1/2 + Omega(1/sqrt(D)) fraction of I's constraints, where D is a bound on the number of constraints that each variable occurs in. This improves both qualitatively and quantitatively on the recent work of Farhi, Goldstone, and Gutmann (2014), which gave a quantum algorithm to find an assignment satisfying a 1/2 Omega(D^{-3/4}) fraction of the equations. For arbitrary constraint satisfaction problems, we give a similar result for "triangle-free" instances; i.e., an efficient algorithm that finds an assignment satisfying at least a mu + Omega(1/sqrt(degree)) fraction of constraints, where mu is the fraction that would be satisfied by a uniformly random assignment.
Boaz Barak, Ankur Moitra, Ryan O'Donnell, Prasad Raghavendra, Oded Regev 0001, David Steurer, Luca Trevisan 0001, Aravindan Vijayaraghavan, David Witmer, John Wright 0004
APPROX-RANDOM9
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
FOCS3
2014 Goldreich's PRG: Evidence for Near-Optimal Polynomial Stretch
abstract
Furthering the study of cryptography in constant parallel time, we give new evidence for the security of Gold Reich's candidate pseudorandom generator with near-optimal, polynomial stretch. Our evidence consists both of security against sub exponential-time linear attacks as well as sub exponential-time attacks using SDP hierarchies such as Sherali-Adams+ and Lasserre/Parrilo. More specifically, instantiating Gold Reich's generator with the 5-ary "Tri-Sum-And" predicate, we get a candidate 5-local PRG which is secure against both linear attacks and attacks based on the Lasserre/Parrilo SDP hierarchy. Previous works with such small locality gave polynomially less stretch and were only shown to be secure against linear attacks. Our result is essentially optimal, as known SDP/spectral techniques show the generator would not be secure if its stretch was higher by any polynomial factor. More generally, we show that (a slight variant of) Gold Reich's generator can have stretch increasing with the degree of the smallest nonzero Fourier coefficient of the predicate while resisting sub exponential-time attacks based on the Sherali-Adams+ SDP hierarchy. Again, the dependence on the degree is (potentially) optimal due to known SDP/spectral methods which succeed at any polynomially higher stretch. Finally, for a large family of predicates we also extend this result to security against the much stronger Lasserre/Parrilo SDP hierarchy.
Ryan O'Donnell, David Witmer
CCC2
2013 Sparsest cut on bounded treewidth graphs: algorithms and hardness results
abstract
We give a 2-approximation algorithm for the non-uniform Sparsest Cut problem that runs in time nO(k), where k is the treewidth of the graph. This improves on the previous 22k-approximation in time poly(n) 2O(k) due to Chlamtac et al. [18].
Anupam Gupta 0001, Kunal Talwar, David Witmer
STOC3