skip to main content
10.1145/1536414.1536510acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Random graphs and the parity quantifier

Published:31 May 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

The classical zero-one law for first-order logic on random graphs says that for every first-order property φ in the theory of graphs and every p ∈ (0,1), the probability that the random graph G(n, p) satisfies φ approaches either 0 or 1 as n approaches infinity. It is well known that this law fails to hold for any formalism that can express the parity quantifier: for certain properties, the probability that G(n,p) satisfies the property need not converge, and for others the limit may be strictly between 0 and 1. In this work, we capture the limiting behavior of properties definable in first order logic augmented with the parity quantifier, FOP, over G(n,p), thus eluding the above hurdles. Specifically, we establish the following "modular convergence law": For every FOP sentence φ, there are two explicitly computable rational numbers a0, a1, such that for i ∈ {0,1}, as n approaches infinity, the probability that the random graph G(2n+i, p) satisfies φ approaches ai. Our results also extend appropriately to FO equipped with Modq quantifiers for prime q. In the process of deriving the above theorem, we explore a new question that may be of interest in its own right. Specifically, we study the joint distribution of the subgraph statistics modulo 2 of G(n,p): namely, the number of copies, mod 2, of a fixed number of graphs F1, ..., Fl of bounded size in G(n,p). We first show that every FOP property φ is almost surely determined by subgraph statistics modulo 2 of the above type. Next, we show that the limiting joint distribution of the subgraph statistics modulo 2 depends only on n Mod 2, and we determine this limiting distribution completely. Interestingly, both these steps are based on a common technique using multivariate polynomials over finite fields and, in particular, on a new generalization of the Gowers norm that we introduce. The first step above is analogous to the Razborov-Smolensky method for lower bounds for AC0 with parity gates, yet stronger in certain ways. For instance, it allows us to obtain examples of simple graph properties that are exponentially uncorrelated with every FOP sentence, which is something that is not known for AC.

References

  1. Babai, Nisan, and Szegedy. Multiparty protocols and logspace-hard pseudorandom sequences. In STOC: ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Blass, Y. Gurevich, and D. Kozen. A zero-one law for logic with a fixed point operator. Information and Control, 67:70--90, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Bogdanov and E. Viola. Pseudorandom bits for polynomials. In FOCS, pages 41--51, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Fagin. Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets. In R. M. Karp, editor, Complexity of Computation, SIAM--AMS Proceedings, Vol. 7, pages 43--73, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. Fagin. Probabilities on finite models. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41:50--58, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Y. V. Glebskii, D. I. Kogan, M. I. Liogonki, and V. A. Talanov. Range and degree of realizability of formulas in the restricted predicate calculus. Cybernetics, 5:142--154, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. W. T. Gowers. A new proof of Szemerédi's theorem. Geom. Funct. Anal., 11(3):465--588, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. B. Green and T. Tao. The primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. Ann. of Math. (2), 167(2):481--547, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. L. Hella, P. Kolaitis, and K. Luosto. Almost everywhere equivalence of logics in finite model theory. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 2(4):422--443, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. P. G. Kolaitis and M. Y. Vardi. The decision problem for the probabilities of higher-order properties. In Proc. 19th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 425--435, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. G. Kolaitis and M. Y. Vardi. 0-1 laws and decision problems for fragments of second-order logic. Information and Computation, 87:302--338, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Lovett. Unconditional pseudorandom generators for low degree polynomials. In STOC, pages 557--562, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. L. Pacholski and W. Szwast. The 0-1 law fails for the class of existential second-order Gödel sentences with equality. In Proc. 30th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 280--285, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Razborov. Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth circuits over a complete basis with logical addition. MATHNASUSSR: Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 41, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Shelah and J. Spencer. Zero-one laws for sparse random graphs. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 1:97--115, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. Smolensky. Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for boolean circuit complexity. In STOC, pages 77--82, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Spencer and S. Shelah. Threshold spectra for random graphs. In Proc. 19th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, pages 421--424, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Viola. The sum of d small-bias generators fools polynomials of degree d. In IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 124--127, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. E. Viola and A. Wigderson. Norms, xor lemmas, and lower bounds for gf(2) polynomials and multiparty protocols. In 22th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Random graphs and the parity quantifier

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          STOC '09: Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
          May 2009
          750 pages
          ISBN:9781605585062
          DOI:10.1145/1536414

          Copyright © 2009 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 31 May 2009

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

          Upcoming Conference

          STOC '24
          56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
          June 24 - 28, 2024
          Vancouver , BC , Canada

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader