Sublinear Algorithms Lecture 3

Similar documents
Lecture 8: Linearity and Assignment Testing

Learning and Fourier Analysis

Sublinear Algorithms Lecture 3. Sofya Raskhodnikova Penn State University

Lecture 23: Analysis of Boolean Functions

Lecture 5: Derandomization (Part II)

Tolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties

Lecture 22. m n c (k) i,j x i x j = c (k) k=1

Proclaiming Dictators and Juntas or Testing Boolean Formulae

Approximating MAX-E3LIN is NP-Hard

Tolerant Versus Intolerant Testing for Boolean Properties

Lecture 8 (Notes) 1. The book Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach by Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak;

Notes for Lecture 14 v0.9

Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 17 (1999)

Lecture 4: LMN Learning (Part 2)

CS369E: Communication Complexity (for Algorithm Designers) Lecture #8: Lower Bounds in Property Testing

Testing Low-Degree Polynomials over GF (2)

Limits to Approximability: When Algorithms Won't Help You. Note: Contents of today s lecture won t be on the exam

Approximation Resistance from Pairwise Independent Subgroups

Lecture Notes on Linearity (Group Homomorphism) Testing

A Self-Tester for Linear Functions over the Integers with an Elementary Proof of Correctness

2 Completing the Hardness of approximation of Set Cover

Lecture 18: Inapproximability of MAX-3-SAT

Low-Degree Testing. Madhu Sudan MSR. Survey based on many works. of /02/2015 CMSA: Low-degree Testing 1

6.842 Randomness and Computation April 2, Lecture 14

CS 6815: Lecture 4. September 4, 2018

CS359G Lecture 5: Characters of Abelian Groups

Lecture 10: Learning DNF, AC 0, Juntas. 1 Learning DNF in Almost Polynomial Time

Tutorial on Quantum Computing. Vwani P. Roychowdhury. Lecture 1: Introduction

Lec. 11: Håstad s 3-bit PCP

Lecture 3: Boolean Functions and the Walsh Hadamard Code 1

Non-Approximability Results (2 nd part) 1/19

PCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation

Towards the Sliding Scale Conjecture (Old & New PCP constructions)

Randomness-efficient Low Degree Tests and Short PCPs via Epsilon-Biased Sets

Building Assignment Testers DRAFT

Lecture 15: A Brief Look at PCP

Notes for Lecture 2. Statement of the PCP Theorem and Constraint Satisfaction

Quasi-Random PCP and Hardness of 2-Catalog Segmentation

Non-Interactive Zero Knowledge (II)

Expander Graphs and Their Applications (X) Yijia Chen Shanghai Jiaotong University

CS151 Complexity Theory. Lecture 15 May 22, 2017

Postprint.

Lecture 10: Hardness of approximating clique, FGLSS graph

Lecture Notes on Secret Sharing

Lecture 5: February 16, 2012

Lecture 3: Randomness in Computation

Lecture 20: Course summary and open problems. 1 Tools, theorems and related subjects

With P. Berman and S. Raskhodnikova (STOC 14+). Grigory Yaroslavtsev Warren Center for Network and Data Sciences

Lecture 18: PCP Theorem and Hardness of Approximation I

Query Efficient PCPs with Perfect Completeness

Dinur s Proof of the PCP Theorem

Introduction Long transparent proofs The real PCP theorem. Real Number PCPs. Klaus Meer. Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany

Intro to Theory of Computation

1 Agenda. 2 History. 3 Probabilistically Checkable Proofs (PCPs). Lecture Notes Definitions. PCPs. Approximation Algorithms.

Probabilistically Checkable Proofs. 1 Introduction to Probabilistically Checkable Proofs

Lecture 7: ɛ-biased and almost k-wise independent spaces

Improved NP-inapproximability for 2-variable linear equations

1 Rabin Squaring Function and the Factoring Assumption

Homomorphism Testing

Composition of low-error 2-query PCPs using decodable PCPs

Improved NP-inapproximability for 2-variable linear equations

On the efficient approximability of constraint satisfaction problems

Identifying an Honest EXP NP Oracle Among Many

Tool: Linearity Testing and the Walsh-Hadamard Code

CS 151 Complexity Theory Spring Solution Set 5

Lecture 15: Interactive Proofs

COS598D Lecture 3 Pseudorandom generators from one-way functions

Property Testing and Affine Invariance Part I Madhu Sudan Harvard University

Almost transparent short proofs for NP R

Property Testing: A Learning Theory Perspective

ANALYSIS OF BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS

1 The Low-Degree Testing Assumption

A (De)constructive Approach to Program Checking

Lecture 23: More PSPACE-Complete, Randomized Complexity

Some Depth Two (and Three) Threshold Circuit Lower Bounds. Ryan Williams Stanford Joint work with Daniel Kane (UCSD)

Lecture 6: Random Walks versus Independent Sampling

Highly resilient correctors for polynomials

Lecture 10 + additional notes

Lecture 21: P vs BPP 2

Notes for Lecture 15

COMS E F15. Lecture 22: Linearity Testing Sparse Fourier Transform

Approximation algorithm for Max Cut with unit weights

Lecture 11: Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge II. 1 Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge in the Hidden-Bits Model for the Graph Hamiltonian problem

CSC 2414 Lattices in Computer Science October 11, Lecture 5

Lecture 17 November 8, 2012

Improved NP-inapproximability for 2-variable linear equations

Space Complexity vs. Query Complexity

CPSC 467b: Cryptography and Computer Security

1 Last time and today

Locality in Coding Theory

Fourier analysis of boolean functions in quantum computation

Lecture 3 Small bias with respect to linear tests

Self-Testing Polynomial Functions Efficiently and over Rational Domains

CS6840: Advanced Complexity Theory Mar 29, Lecturer: Jayalal Sarma M.N. Scribe: Dinesh K.

Lecture 04: Secret Sharing Schemes (2) Secret Sharing

6.842 Randomness and Computation March 3, Lecture 8

CPSC 467b: Cryptography and Computer Security

Intro to Theory of Computation

FOURIER ANALYSIS OF BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS

Lecture Notes CS:5360 Randomized Algorithms Lecture 20 and 21: Nov 6th and 8th, 2018 Scribe: Qianhang Sun

Transcription:

Sublinear Algorithms Lecture 3 Sofya Raskhodnikova Penn State University Thanks to Madhav Jha (Penn State) for help with creating these slides.

Tentative Plan Lecture. Background. Testing properties of images and lists. Lecture 2. Testing properties of lists. Sublinear-time approximation for graph problems. Lecture 3. Testing properties of functions. Linearity testing. Lecture 4. Techniques for proving hardness. Other models for sublinear computation.

Testing Linearity

Linear Functions Over Finite Field ABoolean function :, {,}islinearif,, = + + for some,, {,} no free term Work in finite field Other accepted notation for : and Z Addition and multiplication is mod 2 =,,,=,,,that is,,, += +,, + example + Based on Ryan O Donell s lecture notes: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/boolean-analysis/ 4

Testing if a Boolean function is Linear Input:Boolean function :, {,} Question: Is the functionlinear or -far from linear ( 2 values need to be changed to make it linear)? Today: can answer in time 5

Motivation Linearity test is one of the most celebrated testing algorithms A special case of many important property tests Computations over finite fields are used in Cryptography Coding Theory Originally designed for program checkers and self-correctors Low-degree testing is needed in constructions of Probabilistically Checkable Proofs (PCPs) Used for proving inapproximability Main tool in the correctness proof: Fourier analysis of Boolean functions Powerful and widely used technique in understanding the structure of Boolean functions 6

Equivalent Definitions of Linear Functions Definition. islinearif,, = + + for some,,,, = for some. Definition. is linearif + = +()for all,,. [] is a shorthand for {, } Definition Definition + = + = + = +. Definition Definition Let =((,,,,,,)) Repeatedly apply Definition :,, = = =. Based on Ryan O Donell s lecture notes: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/boolean-analysis/ 7

Linearity Test [Blum Luby Rubinfeld 9] BLR Test (f, ε). Pick and independently and uniformly at random from,. 2. Set =+and query on,, and. Acceptiff = +. Analysis If is linear, BLR always accepts. Correctness Theorem [Bellare Coppersmith Hastad Kiwi Sudan 95] If is -far from linear then>fraction of pairs and fail BLR test. Then, by Witness Lemma (Lecture ), 2/iterations suffice. 8

Analysis Technique: Fourier Expansion

Representing Functions as Vectors Stack the 2 values of ()and treat it as a vector in {,}. = () () () () () () () ()

Linear functions There are 2 linear functions: one for each subset []. =, =,, = Parity on the positions indexed by set is,, =

Great Notational Switch Idea: Change notation, so that we work over realsinstead of a finite field. Vectors in, Vectors in R. /False /True -. Addition (mod 2) Multiplication in R. Boolean function:, {,}. Linear function, {,}is given by =. 2

Benefit of New Notation The dot product of and as vectors in, : (# s such that =()) (# s such that ()) = 2 2 (# s such that ()) disagreements between and Inner product of functions,, {,}, = dot product of and as vectors 2 = avg = E,, [ ]., = 2(fraction of disagreements between and ) 3

Benefit 2 of New Notation Claim. The functions form an orthonormal basis for R. If then and are orthogonal:, =. Let be an element on which and differ (w.l.o.g. ) Pair up all -bit strings: (, ) where is with the th bit flipped. Each such pair contributes =to,. Since all s are paired up,, =. Recall that there are 2 linear functions., = In fact,, =for all,,. (The normof,denoted, is, ) + + + + + + + + + + 4

Fourier Expansion Theorem Idea: Work in the basis, so it is easy to see how close a specific function is to each of the linear functions. Fourier Expansion Theorem Every function, Ris uniquely expressible as a linear combination (over R) of the 2 linear functions: =, where =, is the Fourier Coefficient of on set. Proof: can be written uniquely as a linear combination of basis vectors: It remains to prove that = for all. = =, = Definition of Fourier coefficients [], =, [] Linearity of, =, = if = otherwise 5

Examples: Fourier Expansion Fourier transform = = AND(, ) 2 + 2 + 2 2 MAJORITY(,, ) 2 + 2 + 2 2 6

Parseval Equality Parseval Equality Let :, R. Then, = Proof: By Fourier Expansion Theorem, =, By linearity of inner product =, By orthonormality of s = 7

Parseval Equality Parseval Equality for Boolean Functions Let :,,. Then Proof:, = = By definition of inner product, = E, [ ] = Since is Boolean 8

BLR Test in {-,} notation BLR Test (f, ε). Pick and independently and uniformly at random from,. 2. Set = and query on,, and. Acceptiff =. Vector product notation: =(,,, ) Sum-Of-Cubes Lemma. Proof: Indicator variable = if BLR accepts otherwise Pr BLR accepts =,, 2 + 2 [] = +. Pr,, BLR accepts = E,, = 2 + 2 E,, By linearity of expectation 9

Proof of Sum-Of-Cubes Lemma So far: Pr BLR accepts =,, + Next: E,, E,, By Fourier Expansion Theorem = E,, () [] () [] () [] Distributing out the product of sums = E,, () () (),, [] By linearity of expectation = E,, [ () () ()],, [] 2

Proof of Sum-Of-Cubes Lemma (Continued) Pr,, Claim. BLR accepts LetΔdenote symmetric difference of sets and a E,, [ () () ()] = 2 + 2,, [] E,, [ () () ()] E,, [ () () ()]is if ==and otherwise. a= E,, a= E,, a= E,, a= E, E, a= E, [ ] E, [ ] a= E [ ] E {,} [ ] {,} Since = Since = = Since and are independent Since and s coordinates are independent = when Δ= and Δ= == otherwise 2

Proof of Sum-Of-Cubes Lemma (Done) Pr,, BLR accepts = 2 + 2,, [] E,, [ () () ()] = 2 + 2 [] Sum-Of-Cubes Lemma. Pr BLR accepts =,, 2 + 2 [] 22

Proof of Correctness Theorem Correctness Theorem (restated) If is ε-far from linear then Pr BLR accepts. Proof: Suppose to the contrary that < Pr BLR accepts,, = 2 + 2 [] 2 + 2 max = 2 + 2 max Then max > 2. That is, > 2for some. But =, = 2(fraction of disagreements between and ) disagrees with a linear function on <fraction of values. By Sum-Of-Cubes Lemma Since Parseval Equality 23

Summary BLR tests whether a function :, {,}is linear or -far from linear ( 2 values need to be changed to make it linear) in time. 24