Lecture 6. k+1 n, wherein n =, is defined for a given
|
|
- Elijah Hancock
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 (67611) Advanced Topics in Complexity: PCP Theory November 24, 2004 Lecturer: Irit Dinur Lecture 6 Scribe: Sharon Peri Abstract In this lecture we continue our discussion of locally testable and locally decodable codes. We introduce the family of Reed-Müller Codes, which takes us diving into the geometry of m and the notion of Low Degree Testing. We further introduce the lines-table representation, and a mild yet powerful modification of local decodability, with reject as an optional output answer under cetain limitations 1 Locally Testable Codes In previous lectures we have seen Hadamard Code, Quadratic Functions Code and Reed- Solomon Code. We have proven the Hadamard Code and Quadratic Functions Code to be both locally Testable and locally decodable. However, it was also noted that the Hadamard Code suffers from a major disadvantage in efficiency, being exponential in the input size (i.e. an input word of size n bits is encoded by 2 n bits). For the Quadratic Functions Code things are even a little worse, as it is exp(poly(n)). The Reed-Solomon Code on the other hand is considerably efficient, being polynomial in the input size. But is it locally testable/decodable as well? 1.1 Local Testability of Reed-Solomon Code Recall the definition of Reed-Solomon Code: Definition 1 The Reed-Solomon code RS : k+1 n, wherein n =, is defined for a given vector ā = (a 0,..., a k ) k+1 as the vector (Pā(t)) t n, where Pā(x) = a 0 + a 1x + a 2x a k x k. An illustration of RS code word is presented in Figure 1. Note that the distance of the RS code is n k + 1. How can we locally test the Reed-Solomon Code? We can no longer perform linearity testing, since it no longer applies for n > 2 and k > 1. One idea is to query k+1 entries in the code word (Pā(t)) t, reconstruct the polynomial Pā by interpolation, evaluate it in k+2-th point i and compare with the i-th entry of the code word. Disadvantage: the number of queries is as the size of the input! Moreover, this lower bound of k+2 queries is tight; note that there are k+1 degrees of freedom for a polynomial of degree k. This excludes the Reed-Solomon Code from being locally testable, unless provided with an additional information on the input word. 2 Reed-Müller Code The Reed-Müller Code can be thought of as a generalization of the Hadamard Code and the Reed-Solomon Code, combining the advantages of each (efficiency of RS, local testability of Had) yet overcoming the exact same faults. m d [x 1, x 2... x m] a multivariate polynomial over m variables {x 1, x 2... x m} Denote by P d : of degree d. The degree of a multivariate polynomial i1,i 2,...i m a i1 i 2...i m x i 1 1 x i x im m is defined to be the largest d for which there is a non-zero a i1 i 2...i m with i 1 + i i m = d, i.e. the maximal degree of the monomials. For example, deg(x 2 1x 3 2) = 5. Question: How many monomials are there of degree d over m variables? Given the definition above, one can easily see that there are d+m d monomials in d[x 1, x 2... x m] which form a basis for this linear space. 6-1
2 Figure 1: RS Code Definition 2 The Reed-Müller Code RM : (d+m d ) m is defined for a multivariate polynomial over m variables p d [x 1, x 2... x m] (given by its d+m d coefficients) as RM(p) = p(x) : x m, the evaluation of p on each point of m. 2.1 The distance of the Reed-Müller Code Proposition 3 f, g d [x 1, x 2... x m], if f g, then d Prob x m(f(x) = g(x)) Proof Idea By induction on m. Note that for m = 1 the induction basis this is a direct consequence of the basic theorem of Algebra. 1 Corollary 4 The distance of Reed-Müller Code is m d m 1 since there are at most d m = d m 1 points in m which two different polynomials f and g agree on, their corresponding code words are different in at least m d m 1 coordinates. 2.2 Special cases of Reed-Müller Code Consider RM with parameters d = 1 and = 2. The input size n in this case is m+1 1 = m + 1 and the code word length is m = 2 m. Thus in this case we get the Hadamard Code - polynomials in d [x 1, x 2... x m] are affine functions (the monomials basis consists of {x 1, x 2... x m} {1}). If we set m = 1 and = n, d = k then we get the Reed-Solomon Code. 2.3 Establishing the parameters for Reed-Müller Code For an input size of length n and a degree d = log n, what is the magnitude of m? n = m+d d = m+d m mm m = O( log n ). log log n Also, for the code to have a large relative distance, we set = c d for a large enough c. The code word length is m = n O(1) which is reasonably efficient. The relative distance of the code is 1 1 and thus is constant dependent only in c. Can this code be tested in O(d = log n) c queries? 3 Geometry of m and Low Degree Testing Motivation: given a points table A representing a supposedly legitimate code word according to RM encoding, we wish to (locally) test whether P : m, with deg(p) = d, such that x m, A(x) = P(x). Particularly, we would like to determine if the given function A is close to such low degree polynomial P. The closeness of A to P is measured as usual in the Hamming metric. Formally, 1 Obviously, it must hold that > d, otherwise the proposition is trivial. 6-2
3 Figure 2: Axis Test Definition 5 Let A and P be two functions mapping a discrete domain D to a range R. Then dist(a,p) = Prob[A(x) P(x)] x D In other words, dist(a,p) is the portion of indices with different entries in A and P. Thus a low degree test, for some degree d, given a function/point-table A and a user-defined parameter ɛ, tests whether it holds for some P of degree d that dist(a,p) < ɛ. 3.1 Locally testing the Reed-Müller Code Our goal is to perform a low degree testing of RM in O(d) queries to a given point-table A. For intuition purposes, we first outline a suggestive course of the way to solution and formalize later. The principal tool we have in hand when dealing with polynomials is interpolation. Generally, we require O(d m ) points evaluations in order to reconstruct a degree d polynomial over m variables. We wish to use only O(d) such points; so where do we start? The first and probably most intuitive thing to do, is to consider an arbitrary axis i of m, algebraicly described as {x m : x i = t, x j = 0 j i}. Thus the first attempt we have is The Axis Test (See Figure 2) fix d + 2 random points on some arbitrary axis i reconstruct the (restriction to the axis i of the) polynomial by interpolation using d + 1 of said points evaluate on the remaining point and compare with the corresponding entry in the points table Problem: there are only m such axes; what if most or all of their corresponding entries in the given points table are corrupted? Suppose that instead we fix some arbitrary point a = (a 1,..., a m) F m and consider the i-th axis parallel line that goes through this point {(a 1, a 2,..., t,... a m) m : t }. This brings to the following most natural extension and our second attempt: 6-3
4 Figure 3: Axis-Parallel Line Test The Axis-parallel Line Test: 2 (See Figure 3) pick some arbitrary axis i pick some arbitrary point a = (a 1,...,, a m) fix d + 2 random points on this axis-parallel line that contains a, as defined earlier reconstruct the (restriction to the line of the) polynomial by interpolation evaluate on the remaining point and compare with the corresponding entry in the points table Although this suggestion seems fairly better than the previous, it still appears as if we are not yet exhausting all possibilities; indeed, why restricting ourselves to axis-parallel lines, when we can choose any arbitrary line in m? Let us then introduce the parametric representation of a line in the following Definition 6 A line in m is defined l x,h = {x + t h} t wherein x m, h m \ {0}. A line l x,h can also be considered as a univariate function l x,h : m, defined l x,h (t) = x+t h. Consider the restriction of P to the line l denoted by P l. This is a univariate function P(l(t)) = P(x + t h) of degree d in t. Example m = 3 d = 4 P(x,y,z) = xyz 2 + 3z 4 + 2x l = (0,0, 0) + t (1,1, 1) = (t, t, t) P(l(t)) = t t t 2 + 3t 4 + 2t = 4t 4 + 2t m Remark Since the geometry of m might be very different from the more intuitive would not be a bad idea to perform some cautious checks: m it 2 This test underwent a great deal of analysis in the works of [BFL90, BFLS91, FGL + 96], culminating in a proof that this test works for ɛ = Θ(1/md) wherein ɛ is the upper bound on dist(a, P). New analysis by [AS98] showed this test works for ɛ = Ω(1/m), removing entirely the dependence on the degree. Note that the dependence on the number of variables is unavoidable in this test: consider a function consisting different polynomials p x on (m 1) variables, and where f(x 1,..., x m) = p x1 (x 2,..., x m). Such f can be very far from any degree d polynomial over m variables, yet the test will fail only if i is chosen to be 1. [PS94] improve somewhat the result of [AS98] but of course cannot remove the dependence on m. 6-4
5 Figure 4: Point and Line Test Is there really exists a line between each two points of Are there really d + 2 different points on such line? The answer to both questions is positive and easily verified: For each two different points x,y m set h = x y and scale by the desired factor t \ {0}. To see that a line contains different points, note that l = {x+th} t. Assume that for some t 1, t 2 it holds that x+t 1h = x+t 2h. It follows that h(t 1 t 2) = 0, and since h 0 it must holds that (t 1 t 2) = 0, and thus t 1 = t 2. We might also like to exploit for our needs the following m? Lemma 7 deg(p) = d iff l m deg(p l ) = d Proof Idea One direction is immediate; if P is of degree d then so is its restriction to any line l m (which yields a univariate polynimal of degree d). The opposite direction is shown by induction, and using interpolation. We can now formalize The Point and Line Test 3 (See Figure 4) randomly select a line in m (i.e. independently sample x R m and h R m \ {0}). randomly select d+2 points in l x,h and query their evaluation, i.e. pick t 1, t 2,... t d+2 R and query the points table in {x + t ih} d+1 i=1 reconstruct P l by interpolation using d + 1 of said points. evaluate P l on the remaining point and compare with the corresponding entry in the points table 3 This test was implicit in [GLR + 91] and further analyzed by [RS92, ALM + 92, AS97]. Note that it overcomes the dependence of ɛ on m we had in the axis-parallel line test. The analysis by [GLR + 91, RS92] yielded ɛ = Ω(1/d). [ALM + 92] combined the analysis of [RS92, AS98] to obtain ɛ = Ω(1). Using more powerful techniques, [AS97] showed the test achieves ɛ = 1 o(1). [RS97] proposed an even more general test, where a random line is replaced by a random plane, and achieves ɛ = 1 o(1). We will discuss this plane test in detail in the following lectures. 6-5
6 3.2 Local Decoding of Reed-Müller Code Given a code word (table) A which only a certain portion of it is spoiled, we wish to decode a point x. Thus, our promise is that there exists a low degree polynomial P such that dist(a,p) ɛ. For which settings of ɛ we can guarantee correct local decoding with high probabilty? What is the correlation/dependence of ɛ in the other parameters? Lemma 8 Given a table A : m and provided that P d [x 1,... x m] such that dist(a, P) < 1 3(d + 1) then x m there exists a probabilistic procedure that queries d + 1 entries in A and answers P(x) with probability > 2/3. Proof The decoding procedure works as follows: randomly select a line l x,h through x, specifically, l(0) = x. query the entries l(1),..., l(d+1) in the points table and reconstruct P l by interpolation. evaluate P l on x, i.e. P l (0) Observe that 1 t d + 1 it holds that l(t) is uniformly distributed - this is because h is randomly selected. In other words, y x: Prob h m(l x,h(t) = y) = 1/ m Denote by BAD the set of spoiled entries in A. Then, BAD Prob (l(t) BAD) = l:l(0)=x < 1 m 3(d + 1) and by applying the union bound, the probability that any of the d + 1 points are in BAD, and thus causing a wrong interpolation result, is < 1/3. It follows that as asserted. Prob [P l (0) = P(x)] > 2/3 l:l(0)=x In summary, we have a procedure for local decoding using d+1 = Θ(d = log n) queries, with dist(a,p) = Θ( 1 ), and encoding size of poly(n). For constant dist(a,p) and constant number d of queries there is not known a code whose length is less than exp(n). 3.3 Pairwise independence of points on a line Proposition 9 Proof x,y Prob(l(0) = x, l(1) = y) = Prob(x 1 = x, x 2 = y) l x 1,x 2 is left as an (easy) exercise to the reader. 4 The lines table We have already seen that the degree d gives us a tight lower bound on the number of queries (since there are d degrees of freedom). The idea now is to extend the RM code. Instead of evaluation on each point, we add information about the restriction of the polynomial P to each of the lines l x,h m. The code word is thus a table with an entry per line, altogether m ( m 1) 2m 2 entries (there ( 1) are 2 points pairs which define the same line; we choose one canonical representation to obtain a more compact encoding - this is called folding, since it is as if we collapsed all these redundancy representations into a single entry; See Figure 5). Each entry l consists of the d coefficients of P(l(t)) = d i=0 al ix i. (See Figure 6) 6-6
7 Figure 5: Folding the lines table Figure 6: The Lines Table 6-7
8 5 Local-decoding with reject We have seen a local-decoding procedure that makes O(d) queries, and can handle words of 1 distance <. We already mentioned that it is not known how to locally decode words 3(d+1) whose relative distance is some constant distance. Even if we employ the extra information given by the lines-table, an adversary is actually able to spoil all lines that pass through a fixed x, without violating the dist(a, P) < ɛ constraint (because this set of lines is a tiny fraction of all lines). We therefore introduce the concept of a local-decoding with reject procedure. We allow the decoder to output reject when it has detected inconsistency in the input (that guarantees the input is far from a legal input). We shall formalize the notion of local decodability with reject in the following theorem: Theorem 10 Given an input of a point x and a lines-table A, there exists a probabilistic procedure M such that 1. if A is a legitimate table of a polynomial P, M answers P(x) with probability if there exists a polynomial P such that dist(a,p) ɛ (dist(a,p) is the portion of spoiled entries, i.e. lines, in A) then P rob(m outputs reject or P(x)) > 2/3 3. if dist(a, P) > ɛ then M answers reject with high probability. Proof The procedure M is as follows: 1. randomly select a line l x,h through x for a random h 2. randomly select t \ {0} and set y = x + th 3. randomly select t F and a line l for which l (t ) = y 4. query f l = A(l x,h ) and f l = A(l ) 5. if f l (t) = f l (t ) output f l (0), otherwise output reject Analysis: Completeness: if A is indeed a legitimate table then M decodes correctly always. Soundness: first we note that if x was random, then Prob x,h [A(l x,h) = P l ] > 1 ɛ By applying the same analysis to the randomly selected y and l y,h (which works perfectly due to the pairwise independence property of points on line stated in Proposition 9), we have that: Prob[A(l ) = P l ] > 1 ɛ y,l y Specifically for the line l = l y,h y which interests us. If A(l ) however is inconsistent with the restriction of the global polynomial P to l, then by Proposition 3 the number of coordinates where A(l (t)) t P(l(t)) t is at least d. Observe that we access A(l ) at a random point t, so: Prob t [A(l (t )) P(l(t ))] > 1 d By applying the union bound on the probability to err (either A(l ) or A(l) are inconsistent with the global polynomial P yet the test A(l (t )) =? A(l(t)) passes) we have in total that Prob[M succeeds] 1 d ɛ > 2 as asserted (wherein the event of success of M is either 3 responding reject or decoding P(x) correctly). Part 3 of the theorem is harder to prove and requires somewhat heavier tools we are yet to develop in the following lectures. Remark Note that the distance ɛ of A from a legitimate low degree polynomial P that we have in this case is constant which does not depend in d, as opposed to the requirement in Lemma 8. The tradeoff occurs in the alphabet of the proof - the amount of information (e.g. the number of bits in the binary case) read in each query by the procedure M is significantly larger than in the previous case. 6-8
9 References [ALM + 92] Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems. In IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 14 23, [AS97] [AS98] [BFL90] Sanjeev Arora and Madhu Sudan. Improved low-degree testing and its applications. pages , Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra. Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP. Journal of the ACM, 45(1):70 122, L Babai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. In IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 16 25, [BFLS91] László Babai, Lance Fortnow, Leonid A. Levin, and Mario Szegedy. Checking computations in polylogarithmic time. pages 21 32, [FGL + 96] Uriel Feige, Shafi Goldwasser, Laszlo Lovász, Shmuel Safra, and Mario Szegedy. Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques. Journal of the ACM, 43(2): , [GLR + 91] Peter Gemmell, Richard J. Lipton, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Madhu Sudan, and Avi Wigderson. Self-testing/correcting for polynomials and for approximate functions. In ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 32 42, [PS94] [RS92] [RS97] Alexander Polishchuk and Daniel A. Spielman. Nearly-linear size holographic proofs. In STOC 94: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages ACM Press, Rubinfeld and Sudan. Self-testing polynomial functions efficiently and over rational domains. In SODA: ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (A Conference on Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Discrete Algorithms), pages 23 32, Ran Raz and Shmuel Safra. A sub-constant error-probability low-degree test, and a sub-constant error-probability PCP characterization of NP. pages ,
The Tensor Product of Two Codes is Not Necessarily Robustly Testable
The Tensor Product of Two Codes is Not Necessarily Robustly Testable Paul Valiant Massachusetts Institute of Technology pvaliant@mit.edu Abstract. There has been significant interest lately in the task
More informationBasic Probabilistic Checking 3
CS294: Probabilistically Checkable and Interactive Proofs February 21, 2017 Basic Probabilistic Checking 3 Instructor: Alessandro Chiesa & Igor Shinkar Scribe: Izaak Meckler Today we prove the following
More informationTesting Low-Degree Polynomials over GF (2)
Testing Low-Degree Polynomials over GF (2) Noga Alon Tali Kaufman Michael Krivelevich Simon Litsyn Dana Ron July 9, 2003 Abstract We describe an efficient randomized algorithm to test if a given binary
More informationLecture 5: Derandomization (Part II)
CS369E: Expanders May 1, 005 Lecture 5: Derandomization (Part II) Lecturer: Prahladh Harsha Scribe: Adam Barth Today we will use expanders to derandomize the algorithm for linearity test. Before presenting
More informationHighly resilient correctors for polynomials
Highly resilient correctors for polynomials Peter Gemmell Madhu Sudan Abstract We consider the problem of correcting programs that compute multivariate polynomials over large finite fields and give an
More informationSelf-Testing Polynomial Functions Efficiently and over Rational Domains
Chapter 1 Self-Testing Polynomial Functions Efficiently and over Rational Domains Ronitt Rubinfeld Madhu Sudan Ý Abstract In this paper we give the first self-testers and checkers for polynomials over
More informationLecture Introduction. 2 Formal Definition. CS CTT Current Topics in Theoretical CS Oct 30, 2012
CS 59000 CTT Current Topics in Theoretical CS Oct 30, 0 Lecturer: Elena Grigorescu Lecture 9 Scribe: Vivek Patel Introduction In this lecture we study locally decodable codes. Locally decodable codes are
More informationA Self-Tester for Linear Functions over the Integers with an Elementary Proof of Correctness
A Self-Tester for Linear Functions over the Integers with an Elementary Proof of Correctness The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story
More informationRobust local testability of tensor products of LDPC codes
Robust local testability of tensor products of LDPC codes Irit Dinur 1, Madhu Sudan, and Avi Wigderson 3 1 Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. dinuri@cs.huji.ac.il Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
More informationNP-hardness of coloring 2-colorable hypergraph with poly-logarithmically many colors
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 73 (2018) NP-hardness of coloring 2-colorable with poly-logarithmically many colors Amey Bhangale April 21, 2018 Abstract We give very short
More informationAlmost transparent short proofs for NP R
Brandenburgische Technische Universität, Cottbus, Germany From Dynamics to Complexity: A conference celebrating the work of Mike Shub Toronto, May 10, 2012 Supported by DFG under GZ:ME 1424/7-1 Outline
More informationNotes for Lecture 2. Statement of the PCP Theorem and Constraint Satisfaction
U.C. Berkeley Handout N2 CS294: PCP and Hardness of Approximation January 23, 2006 Professor Luca Trevisan Scribe: Luca Trevisan Notes for Lecture 2 These notes are based on my survey paper [5]. L.T. Statement
More informationPermanent is hard to compute even on a good day
Permanent is hard to compute even on a good day Yuval Filmus September 11, 2012 Abstract We give an exposition of Cai, Pavan and Sivakumar s result on the hardness of permanent. They show that assuming
More informationLecture 10 + additional notes
CSE533: Information Theorn Computer Science November 1, 2010 Lecturer: Anup Rao Lecture 10 + additional notes Scribe: Mohammad Moharrami 1 Constraint satisfaction problems We start by defining bivariate
More informationBuilding Assignment Testers DRAFT
Building Assignment Testers DRAFT Andrew Drucker University of California, San Diego Abstract In this expository paper, we show how to construct Assignment Testers using the Hadamard and quadratic encodings.
More information2-Transitivity is Insufficient for Local Testability
2-Transitivity is Insufficient for Local Testability Elena Grigorescu MIT CSAIL elena g@mit.edu Tali Kaufman MIT & IAS kaufmant@mit.edu Madhu Sudan MIT CSAIL madhu@mit.edu Abstract A basic goal in Property
More informationLecture 8 (Notes) 1. The book Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach by Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak;
Topics in Theoretical Computer Science April 18, 2016 Lecturer: Ola Svensson Lecture 8 (Notes) Scribes: Ola Svensson Disclaimer: These notes were written for the lecturer only and may contain inconsistent
More informationLecture 19: Interactive Proofs and the PCP Theorem
Lecture 19: Interactive Proofs and the PCP Theorem Valentine Kabanets November 29, 2016 1 Interactive Proofs In this model, we have an all-powerful Prover (with unlimited computational prover) and a polytime
More informationB(w, z, v 1, v 2, v 3, A(v 1 ), A(v 2 ), A(v 3 )).
Lecture 13 PCP Continued Last time we began the proof of the theorem that PCP(poly, poly) = NEXP. May 13, 2004 Lecturer: Paul Beame Notes: Tian Sang We showed that IMPLICIT-3SAT is NEXP-complete where
More informationLecture 17 November 8, 2012
6.841: Advanced Complexity Theory Fall 2012 Prof. Dana Moshkovitz Lecture 17 November 8, 2012 Scribe: Mark Bun 1 Overview In the previous lecture, we saw an overview of probabilistically checkable proofs,
More informationLecture 19 : Reed-Muller, Concatenation Codes & Decoding problem
IITM-CS6845: Theory Toolkit February 08, 2012 Lecture 19 : Reed-Muller, Concatenation Codes & Decoding problem Lecturer: Jayalal Sarma Scribe: Dinesh K Theme: Error correcting codes In the previous lecture,
More informationTolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties
Tolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties Eldar Fischer Faculty of Computer Science Technion Israel Institute of Technology Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel. eldar@cs.technion.ac.il Lance
More informationTwo Query PCP with Sub-Constant Error
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No 71 (2008) Two Query PCP with Sub-Constant Error Dana Moshkovitz Ran Raz July 28, 2008 Abstract We show that the N P-Complete language 3SAT has
More information6.841/18.405J: Advanced Complexity Wednesday, April 2, Lecture Lecture 14
6.841/18.405J: Advanced Complexity Wednesday, April 2, 2003 Lecture Lecture 14 Instructor: Madhu Sudan In this lecture we cover IP = PSPACE Interactive proof for straightline programs. Straightline program
More informationTesting Low-Degree Polynomials over Prime Fields
Testing Low-Degree Polynomials over Prime Fields Charanjit S. Jutla IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 0598 csjutla@watson.ibm.com Atri Rudra Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering
More informationLecture 16 November 6th, 2012 (Prasad Raghavendra)
6.841: Advanced Complexity Theory Fall 2012 Lecture 16 November 6th, 2012 (Prasad Raghavendra) Prof. Dana Moshkovitz Scribe: Geng Huang 1 Overview In this lecture, we will begin to talk about the PCP Theorem
More informationTolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 105 (2004) Tolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties Eldar Fischer Lance Fortnow November 18, 2004 Abstract A property tester
More informationTutorial: Locally decodable codes. UT Austin
Tutorial: Locally decodable codes Anna Gál UT Austin Locally decodable codes Error correcting codes with extra property: Recover (any) one message bit, by reading only a small number of codeword bits.
More informationLocally Testable Codes and PCPs of Almost-Linear Length
Locally Testable Codes and PCPs of Almost-Linear Length Oded Goldreich Department of Computer Science Weizmann Institute of Science Rehovot, Israel. oded.goldreich@weizmann.ac.il Madhu Sudan Laboratory
More informationTowards the Sliding Scale Conjecture (Old & New PCP constructions)
Towards the Sliding Scale Conjecture (Old & New PCP constructions) Prahladh Harsha TIFR [Based on joint works with Irit Dinur & Guy Kindler] Outline Intro, Background & Context Goals and questions in this
More information: On the P vs. BPP problem. 30/12/2016 Lecture 12
03684155: On the P vs. BPP problem. 30/12/2016 Lecture 12 Time Hierarchy Theorems Amnon Ta-Shma and Dean Doron 1 Diagonalization arguments Throughout this lecture, for a TM M, we denote M t to be the machine
More informationLecture Notes on Linearity (Group Homomorphism) Testing
Lecture Notes on Linearity (Group Homomorphism) Testing Oded Goldreich April 5, 2016 Summary: These notes present a linearity tester that, on input a description of two groups G,H and oracle access to
More information1 Randomized Computation
CS 6743 Lecture 17 1 Fall 2007 1 Randomized Computation Why is randomness useful? Imagine you have a stack of bank notes, with very few counterfeit ones. You want to choose a genuine bank note to pay at
More informationRobust Local Testability of Tensor Products of LDPC Codes
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 118 (2006) Robust Local Testability of Tensor Products of LDPC Codes Irit Dinur 1, Madhu Sudan 2, and Avi Wigderson 3 1 Hebrew University,
More informationLecture 3: Error Correcting Codes
CS 880: Pseudorandomness and Derandomization 1/30/2013 Lecture 3: Error Correcting Codes Instructors: Holger Dell and Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Xi Wu In this lecture we review some background on error
More informationLocally Testable Codes and PCPs of Almost-Linear Length
Locally Testable Codes and PCPs of Almost-Linear Length ODED GOLDREICH Weizmann Institute of Science AND MADHU SUDAN Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abstract. We initiate a systematic study of locally
More informationLow Degree Test with Polynomially Small Error
Low Degree Test with Polynomially Small Error Dana Moshkovitz January 31, 2016 Abstract A long line of work in Theoretical Computer Science shows that a function is close to a low degree polynomial iff
More informationPCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation
PCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation An Introduction Lee Carraher and Ryan McGovern Department of Computer Science University of Cincinnati October 27, 2003 Introduction Assuming NP P, there are many
More informationLecture 26. Daniel Apon
Lecture 26 Daniel Apon 1 From IPPSPACE to NPPCP(log, 1): NEXP has multi-prover interactive protocols If you ve read the notes on the history of the PCP theorem referenced in Lecture 19 [3], you will already
More informationLecture 4: Codes based on Concatenation
Lecture 4: Codes based on Concatenation Error-Correcting Codes (Spring 206) Rutgers University Swastik Kopparty Scribe: Aditya Potukuchi and Meng-Tsung Tsai Overview In the last lecture, we studied codes
More information1 Probabilistically checkable proofs
CSC 5170: Theory of Computational Complexity Lecture 12 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 12 April 2010 Interactive proofs were introduced as a generalization of the classical notion of a proof in the
More information2 Natural Proofs: a barrier for proving circuit lower bounds
Topics in Theoretical Computer Science April 4, 2016 Lecturer: Ola Svensson Lecture 6 (Notes) Scribes: Ola Svensson Disclaimer: These notes were written for the lecturer only and may contain inconsistent
More information1 The Low-Degree Testing Assumption
Advanced Complexity Theory Spring 2016 Lecture 17: PCP with Polylogarithmic Queries and Sum Check Prof. Dana Moshkovitz Scribes: Dana Moshkovitz & Michael Forbes Scribe Date: Fall 2010 In this lecture
More information6.895 PCP and Hardness of Approximation MIT, Fall Lecture 3: Coding Theory
6895 PCP and Hardness of Approximation MIT, Fall 2010 Lecture 3: Coding Theory Lecturer: Dana Moshkovitz Scribe: Michael Forbes and Dana Moshkovitz 1 Motivation In the course we will make heavy use of
More informationLecture 03: Polynomial Based Codes
Lecture 03: Polynomial Based Codes Error-Correcting Codes (Spring 016) Rutgers University Swastik Kopparty Scribes: Ross Berkowitz & Amey Bhangale 1 Reed-Solomon Codes Reed Solomon codes are large alphabet
More informationLow-Degree Testing. Madhu Sudan MSR. Survey based on many works. of /02/2015 CMSA: Low-degree Testing 1
Low-Degree Testing Madhu Sudan MSR Survey based on many works 09/02/2015 CMSA: Low-degree Testing 1 Kepler s Problem Tycho Brahe (~1550-1600): Wished to measure planetary motion accurately. To confirm
More informationCell-Probe Proofs and Nondeterministic Cell-Probe Complexity
Cell-obe oofs and Nondeterministic Cell-obe Complexity Yitong Yin Department of Computer Science, Yale University yitong.yin@yale.edu. Abstract. We study the nondeterministic cell-probe complexity of static
More informationOn Axis-Parallel Tests for Tensor Product Codes
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 110 (2017) On Axis-Parallel Tests for Tensor Product Codes Alessandro Chiesa alexch@berkeley.edu UC Berkeley Peter Manohar manohar@berkeley.edu
More informationNoisy Interpolating Sets for Low Degree Polynomials
Noisy Interpolating Sets for Low Degree Polynomials Zeev Dvir Amir Shpilka Abstract A Noisy Interpolating Set (NIS) for degree-d polynomials is a set S F n, where F is a finite field, such that any degree-d
More informationA State of the Art MIP For Circuit Satisfiability. 1 A 2-Prover MIP for Low-Depth Arithmetic Circuit Satisfiability
COSC 544 Probabilistic Proof Systems 10/17/17 Lecturer: Justin Thaler A State of the Art MIP For Circuit Satisfiability 1 A 2-Prover MIP for Low-Depth Arithmetic Circuit Satisfiability The succinct argument
More informationLast time, we described a pseudorandom generator that stretched its truly random input by one. If f is ( 1 2
CMPT 881: Pseudorandomness Prof. Valentine Kabanets Lecture 20: N W Pseudorandom Generator November 25, 2004 Scribe: Ladan A. Mahabadi 1 Introduction In this last lecture of the course, we ll discuss the
More informationNoisy Interpolating Sets for Low Degree Polynomials
Noisy Interpolating Sets for Low Degree Polynomials Zeev Dvir Amir Shpilka Abstract A Noisy Interpolating Set (NIS) for degree d polynomials is a set S F n, where F is a finite field, such that any degree
More informationImproved low-degree testing and its applications
Improved low-degree testing and its applications Sanjeev Arora Princeton University Madhu Sudan y IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Abstract NP = PCP(log n; ) and related results crucially depend upon the
More informationImproved Hardness of Approximating Chromatic Number
Improved Hardness of Approximating Chromatic Number Sangxia Huang KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden sangxia@csc.kth.se April 13, 2013 Abstract We prove that for sufficiently large K,
More informationIntroduction Long transparent proofs The real PCP theorem. Real Number PCPs. Klaus Meer. Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
Santaló s Summer School, Part 3, July, 2012 joint work with Martijn Baartse (work supported by DFG, GZ:ME 1424/7-1) Outline 1 Introduction 2 Long transparent proofs for NP R 3 The real PCP theorem First
More informationNotes 10: List Decoding Reed-Solomon Codes and Concatenated codes
Introduction to Coding Theory CMU: Spring 010 Notes 10: List Decoding Reed-Solomon Codes and Concatenated codes April 010 Lecturer: Venkatesan Guruswami Scribe: Venkat Guruswami & Ali Kemal Sinop DRAFT
More informationTool: Linearity Testing and the Walsh-Hadamard Code
11.5 NP PCP(poly(n), 1): PCPfromtheWalsh-Hadamardcode 215 compute this mapping. We call reductions with these properties Levin reductions (see the proof of Theorem 2.18). It is worthwhile to observe that
More informationIP = PSPACE using Error Correcting Codes
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 137 (2010 IP = PSPACE using Error Correcting Codes Or Meir Abstract The IP theorem, which asserts that IP = PSPACE (Lund et. al., and Shamir,
More informationLecture 26: QIP and QMIP
Quantum Computation (CMU 15-859BB, Fall 2015) Lecture 26: QIP and QMIP December 9, 2015 Lecturer: John Wright Scribe: Kumail Jaffer 1 Introduction Recall QMA and QMA(2), the quantum analogues of MA and
More informationHow to Cope with NP-Completeness
2 How to Cope with NP-Completeness Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Saarland University, Summer 2014 NP-hard optimization problems appear everywhere in our life. Under the assumption that P
More informationHardness of Approximation
CSE 594: Combinatorial and Graph Algorithms Lecturer: Hung Q. Ngo SUNY at Buffalo, Fall 2006 Last update: November 25, 2006 Hardness of Approximation 1 Overview To date, thousands of natural optimization
More informationSHORT PCPS WITH POLYLOG QUERY COMPLEXITY
SIAM J. COMPUT. Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 551 607 c 2008 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics SHORT PCPS WITH POLYLOG QUERY COMPLEXITY ELI BEN-SASSON AND MADHU SUDAN Abstract. We give constructions
More informationLecture Introduction. 2 Linear codes. CS CTT Current Topics in Theoretical CS Oct 4, 2012
CS 59000 CTT Current Topics in Theoretical CS Oct 4, 01 Lecturer: Elena Grigorescu Lecture 14 Scribe: Selvakumaran Vadivelmurugan 1 Introduction We introduced error-correcting codes and linear codes in
More information[PCP Theorem is] the most important result in complexity theory since Cook s Theorem. Ingo Wegener, 2005
PCP Theorem [PCP Theorem is] the most important result in complexity theory since Cook s Theorem. Ingo Wegener, 2005 Computational Complexity, by Fu Yuxi PCP Theorem 1 / 88 S. Arora, C. Lund, R. Motwani,
More informationLecture 10: Hardness of approximating clique, FGLSS graph
CSE 533: The PCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation (Autumn 2005) Lecture 10: Hardness of approximating clique, FGLSS graph Nov. 2, 2005 Lecturer: Venkat Guruswami and Ryan O Donnell Scribe: Ioannis
More informationProbabilistically Checkable Arguments
Probabilistically Checkable Arguments Yael Tauman Kalai Microsoft Research yael@microsoft.com Ran Raz Weizmann Institute of Science ran.raz@weizmann.ac.il Abstract We give a general reduction that converts
More information: Error Correcting Codes. October 2017 Lecture 1
03683072: Error Correcting Codes. October 2017 Lecture 1 First Definitions and Basic Codes Amnon Ta-Shma and Dean Doron 1 Error Correcting Codes Basics Definition 1. An (n, K, d) q code is a subset of
More informationSub-Constant Error Low Degree Test of Almost Linear Size
Sub-Constant rror Low Degree Test of Almost Linear Size Dana Moshkovitz Ran Raz March 9, 2006 Abstract Given a function f : F m F over a finite field F, a low degree tester tests its agreement with an
More informationDefinition 1. NP is a class of language L such that there exists a poly time verifier V with
Lecture 9: MIP=NEXP Topics in Pseudorandomness and Complexity Theory (Spring 2017) Rutgers University Swastik Kopparty Scribe: Jinyoung Park 1 Introduction Definition 1. NP is a class of language L such
More information6.842 Randomness and Computation Lecture 5
6.842 Randomness and Computation 2012-02-22 Lecture 5 Lecturer: Ronitt Rubinfeld Scribe: Michael Forbes 1 Overview Today we will define the notion of a pairwise independent hash function, and discuss its
More informationOn the Power of Multi-Prover Interactive Protocols. Lance Fortnow. John Rompel y. Michael Sipser z. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
On the Power of Multi-Prover Interactive Protocols Lance Fortnow John Rompel y Michael Sipser z { Laboratory for Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 1 Introduction
More informationLecture 12: November 6, 2017
Information and Coding Theory Autumn 017 Lecturer: Madhur Tulsiani Lecture 1: November 6, 017 Recall: We were looking at codes of the form C : F k p F n p, where p is prime, k is the message length, and
More informationRandomness and non-uniformity
Randomness and non-uniformity JASS 2006 Course 1: Proofs and Computers Felix Weninger TU München April 2006 Outline Randomized computation 1 Randomized computation 2 Computation with advice Non-uniform
More informationLecture 7 Limits on inapproximability
Tel Aviv University, Fall 004 Lattices in Computer Science Lecture 7 Limits on inapproximability Lecturer: Oded Regev Scribe: Michael Khanevsky Let us recall the promise problem GapCVP γ. DEFINITION 1
More informationQuasi-Random PCP and Hardness of 2-Catalog Segmentation
Quasi-Random PCP and Hardness of 2-Catalog Segmentation Rishi Saket Carnegie Mellon University rsaket@cs.cmu.edu ABSTRACT. We study the problem of 2-Catalog Segmentation which is one of the several variants
More informationALL codes discussed in this paper are linear. We study. Locally Testable Cyclic Codes. László Babai, Amir Shpilka, and Daniel Štefankovič
Locally Testable Cyclic Codes László Babai, Amir Shpilka, and Daniel Štefankovič Abstract Cyclic linear codes of block length over a finite field are linear subspaces of that are invariant under a cyclic
More informationCertifying polynomials for AC 0 [ ] circuits, with applications
Certifying polynomials for AC 0 [ ] circuits, with applications Swastik Kopparty Srikanth Srinivasan Abstract In this paper, we introduce and develop the method of certifying polynomials for proving AC
More informationError Correcting Codes Questions Pool
Error Correcting Codes Questions Pool Amnon Ta-Shma and Dean Doron January 3, 018 General guidelines The questions fall into several categories: (Know). (Mandatory). (Bonus). Make sure you know how to
More informationLecture 5. 1 Review (Pairwise Independence and Derandomization)
6.842 Randomness and Computation September 20, 2017 Lecture 5 Lecturer: Ronitt Rubinfeld Scribe: Tom Kolokotrones 1 Review (Pairwise Independence and Derandomization) As we discussed last time, we can
More informationIncrementally Verifiable Computation or Proofs of Knowledge Imply Time/Space Efficiency
Incrementally Verifiable Computation or Proofs of Knowledge Imply Time/Space Efficiency Paul Valiant pvaliant@mit.edu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abstract. A probabilistically checkable proof
More informationNotes for Lecture 18
U.C. Berkeley Handout N18 CS294: Pseudorandomness and Combinatorial Constructions November 1, 2005 Professor Luca Trevisan Scribe: Constantinos Daskalakis Notes for Lecture 18 1 Basic Definitions In the
More informationP versus NP over Various Structures
26th ESSLLI Summer School 2014, Tübingen, August 2014 PART 5: Probabilistically Checkable Proofs jointly with J.A. Makowsky Outline for today 1 Introduction 2 Verifiers and real PCP classes 3 The classical
More information2 Evidence that Graph Isomorphism is not NP-complete
Topics in Theoretical Computer Science April 11, 2016 Lecturer: Ola Svensson Lecture 7 (Notes) Scribes: Ola Svensson Disclaimer: These notes were written for the lecturer only and may contain inconsistent
More informationHomomorphism Testing
Homomorphism Shpilka & Wigderson, 2006 Daniel Shahaf Tel-Aviv University January 2009 Table of Contents 1 2 3 1 / 26 Algebra Definitions 1 Algebra Definitions 2 / 26 Groups Algebra Definitions Definition
More informationToday. Few Comments. PCP Theorem, Simple proof due to Irit Dinur [ECCC, TR05-046]! Based on some ideas promoted in [Dinur- Reingold 04].
Today Few Comments PCP Theorem, Simple proof due to Irit Dinur [ECCC, TR05-046]! Based on some ideas promoted in [Dinur- Reingold 04]. Remarkably simple novel proof. Leads to new quantitative results too!
More information2 Completing the Hardness of approximation of Set Cover
CSE 533: The PCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation (Autumn 2005) Lecture 15: Set Cover hardness and testing Long Codes Nov. 21, 2005 Lecturer: Venkat Guruswami Scribe: Atri Rudra 1 Recap We will first
More informationLocally Decodable Codes
Foundations and Trends R in sample Vol. xx, No xx (xxxx) 1 114 c xxxx xxxxxxxxx DOI: xxxxxx Locally Decodable Codes Sergey Yekhanin 1 1 Microsoft Research Silicon Valley, 1065 La Avenida, Mountain View,
More informationAn Algorithmic Proof of the Lopsided Lovász Local Lemma (simplified and condensed into lecture notes)
An Algorithmic Proof of the Lopsided Lovász Local Lemma (simplified and condensed into lecture notes) Nicholas J. A. Harvey University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada nickhar@cs.ubc.ca Jan Vondrák
More informationOptimal testing of Reed-Muller codes
Optimal testing of Reed-Muller codes Arnab Bhattacharyya Swastik Kopparty Grant Schoenebeck Madhu Sudan David Zuckerman October 2, 2009 Abstract We consider the problem of testing if a given function f
More informationProbabilistically Checkable Proofs. 1 Introduction to Probabilistically Checkable Proofs
Course Proofs and Computers, JASS 06 Probabilistically Checkable Proofs Lukas Bulwahn May 21, 2006 1 Introduction to Probabilistically Checkable Proofs 1.1 History of Inapproximability Results Before introducing
More informationSIGACT News Complexity Theory Column 25
SIGACT News Complexity Theory Column 25 Lane A. Hemaspaandra Dept. of Computer Science, University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627, USA lane@cs.rochester.edu Introduction to Complexity Theory Column 25
More informationPermanent and Determinant
Permanent and Determinant non-identical twins Avi Wigderson IAS, Princeton Meet the twins F field, char(f) 2. X M n (F) matrix of variables X ij Det n (X) = σ Sn sgn(σ) i [n] X iσ(i) Per n (X) = σ Sn i
More informationCS168: The Modern Algorithmic Toolbox Lecture #19: Expander Codes
CS168: The Modern Algorithmic Toolbox Lecture #19: Expander Codes Tim Roughgarden & Gregory Valiant June 1, 2016 In the first lecture of CS168, we talked about modern techniques in data storage (consistent
More informationLecture 29: Computational Learning Theory
CS 710: Complexity Theory 5/4/2010 Lecture 29: Computational Learning Theory Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dmitri Svetlov and Jake Rosin Today we will provide a brief introduction to computational
More informationLecture 9: List decoding Reed-Solomon and Folded Reed-Solomon codes
Lecture 9: List decoding Reed-Solomon and Folded Reed-Solomon codes Error-Correcting Codes (Spring 2016) Rutgers University Swastik Kopparty Scribes: John Kim and Pat Devlin 1 List decoding review Definition
More informationDinur s Proof of the PCP Theorem
Dinur s Proof of the PCP Theorem Zampetakis Manolis School of Electrical and Computer Engineering National Technical University of Athens December 22, 2014 Table of contents 1 Introduction 2 PCP Theorem
More informationQuantum Information and the PCP Theorem
Quantum Information and the PCP Theorem arxiv:quant-ph/0504075v1 10 Apr 2005 Ran Raz Weizmann Institute ran.raz@weizmann.ac.il Abstract We show how to encode 2 n (classical) bits a 1,...,a 2 n by a single
More informationQuestions Pool. Amnon Ta-Shma and Dean Doron. January 2, Make sure you know how to solve. Do not submit.
Questions Pool Amnon Ta-Shma and Dean Doron January 2, 2017 General guidelines The questions fall into several categories: (Know). (Mandatory). (Bonus). Make sure you know how to solve. Do not submit.
More informationLecture 20: Goemans-Williamson MAXCUT Approximation Algorithm. 2 Goemans-Williamson Approximation Algorithm for MAXCUT
CS 80: Introduction to Complexity Theory 0/03/03 Lecture 20: Goemans-Williamson MAXCUT Approximation Algorithm Instructor: Jin-Yi Cai Scribe: Christopher Hudzik, Sarah Knoop Overview First, we outline
More informationPostprint.
http://www.diva-portal.org Postprint This is the accepted version of a paper presented at 16th International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, APPROX 2013 and
More information