Randomized Algorithms for Learning Partitions with Near Optimal Query Complexity in Constant Rounds

We study the round complexity of learning a hidden partition $\mathcal{P}$ of an $n$-element universe using PAIR queries: PAIR($x,y$) tells us whether $x$ and $y$ belong to the same part of the partition or not. While it is easy to learn using $n|\mathcal{P}|$ queries using a basic algorithm and this query complexity is optimal, this basic algorithm is highly sequential. Black, Mazumdar, and Saha [COLT 2025] recently gave tight deterministic round/query tradeoffs when the number of parts of $\mathcal{P}$ is known. In particular they prove $Θ(\log\log n)$ rounds are sufficient and necessary to limit the number of queries to $n|\mathcal{P}|$. They leave proving a randomized lower bound as an open direction. We show that randomization dramatically changes the picture. When the number of parts $k = |\mathcal{P}|$ is known, we give a simple 3-round randomized algorithm using $O(nk\log n)$ queries with high probability, and prove that 2 rounds require $Ω(n^{4/3}k^{2/3})$ queries -- the same as deterministic algorithms. We also study a more general setting where the number of parts is unknown. In this case, we give a 4-round randomized algorithm using $O(n|\mathcal P|\log^2 n)$ queries with high probability, and prove that 3-rounds cannot achieve near-optimal query complexity. Furthermore, we show an even bigger separation in this regime between randomized and deterministic algorithms: for the latter, $Θ(\log n/\log\log n)$ rounds are necessary and sufficient to obtain near-optimal query complexity.

Monotonicity Testing of High-Dimensional Distributions with Subcube Conditioning

We study monotonicity testing of high-dimensional distributions on $\{-1,1\}^n$ in the model of subcube conditioning, suggested and studied by Canonne, Ron, and Servedio~\cite{CRS15} and Bhattacharyya and Chakraborty~\cite{BC18}. Previous work shows that the \emph{sample complexity} of monotonicity testing must be exponential in $n$ (Rubinfeld, Vasilian~\cite{RV20}, and Aliakbarpour, Gouleakis, Peebles, Rubinfeld, Yodpinyanee~\cite{AGPRY19}). We show that the subcube \emph{query complexity} is $\tilde{\Theta}(n/\varepsilon^2)$, by proving nearly matching upper and lower bounds. Our work is the first to use directed isoperimetric inequalities (developed for function monotonicity testing) for analyzing a distribution testing algorithm. Along the way, we generalize an inequality of Khot, Minzer, and Safra~\cite{KMS18} to real-valued functions on $\{-1,1\}^n$. We also study uniformity testing of distributions that are promised to be monotone, a problem introduced by Rubinfeld, Servedio~\cite{RS09} , using subcube conditioning. We show that the query complexity is $\tilde{\Theta}(\sqrt{n}/\varepsilon^2)$. Our work proves the lower bound, which matches (up to poly-logarithmic factors) the uniformity testing upper bound for general distributions (Canonne, Chen, Kamath, Levi, Waingarten~\cite{CCKLW21}). Hence, we show that monotonicity does not help, beyond logarithmic factors, in testing uniformity of distributions with subcube conditional queries.

Better Algorithms for Individually Fair $k$-Clustering

We study data clustering problems with $\ell_p$-norm objectives (e.g. $k$-Median and $k$-Means) in the context of individual fairness. The dataset consists of $n$ points, and we want to find $k$ centers such that (a) the objective is minimized, while (b) respecting the individual fairness constraint that every point $v$ has a center within a distance at most $r(v)$, where $r(v)$ is $v$'s distance to its $(n/k)$th nearest point. Jung, Kannan, and Lutz [FORC 2020] introduced this concept and designed a clustering algorithm with provable (approximate) fairness and objective guarantees for the $\ell_\infty$ or $k$-Center objective. Mahabadi and Vakilian [ICML 2020] revisited this problem to give a local-search algorithm for all $\ell_p$-norms. Empirically, their algorithms outperform Jung et. al.'s by a large margin in terms of cost (for $k$-Median and $k$-Means), but they incur a reasonable loss in fairness. In this paper, our main contribution is to use Linear Programming (LP) techniques to obtain better algorithms for this problem, both in theory and in practice. We prove that by modifying known LP rounding techniques, one gets a worst-case guarantee on the objective which is much better than in MV20, and empirically, this objective is extremely close to the optimal. Furthermore, our theoretical fairness guarantees are comparable with MV20 in theory, and empirically, we obtain noticeably fairer solutions. Although solving the LP {\em exactly} might be prohibitive, we demonstrate that in practice, a simple sparsification technique drastically improves the run-time of our algorithm.

Revisiting Priority $k$-Center: Fairness and Outliers

In the Priority $k$-Center problem, the input consists of a metric space $(X,d)$, an integer $k$ and for each point $v \in X$ a priority radius $r(v)$. The goal is to choose $k$-centers $S \subseteq X$ to minimize $\max_{v \in X} \frac{1}{r(v)} d(v,S)$. If all $r(v)$'s were uniform, one obtains the classical $k$-center problem. Plesn\'ik [Plesn\'ik, Disc. Appl. Math. 1987] introduced this problem and gave a $2$-approximation algorithm matching the best possible algorithm for vanilla $k$-center. We show how the problem is related to two different notions of fair clustering [Harris et al., NeurIPS 2018; Jung et al., FORC 2020]. Motivated by these developments we revisit the problem and, in our main technical contribution, develop a framework that yields constant factor approximation algorithms for Priority $k$-Center with outliers. Our framework extends to generalizations of Priority $k$-Center to matroid and knapsack constraints, and as a corollary, also yields algorithms with fairness guarantees in the lottery model of Harris et al.

Fair Algorithms for Clustering

We study clustering problems under the lens of {\em algorithmic fairness} inspired by the disparate impact doctrine. Given a collection of points containing many {\em protected groups}, the goal is to find good clustering solutions where each cluster {\em fairly represents} each group. We allow the user to specify the parameters that define fair representation, and this flexibility makes our model significantly more general than the recent models of Chierichetti et al. (NIPS 2017) and R\"osner and Schmidt (ICALP 2018). Our main result is a simple algorithm that, for any $\ell_p$-norm including the $k$-center, $k$-median, and $k$-means objectives, transforms any clustering solution to a fair one with only a slight loss in quality.