Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2307.13926

Fourier Growth of Communication Protocols for XOR Functions

Abstract

The level-$k$ $\ell_1$-Fourier weight of a Boolean function refers to the sum of absolute values of its level-$k$ Fourier coefficients. Fourier growth refers to the growth of these weights as $k$ grows. It has been extensively studied for various computational models, and bounds on the Fourier growth, even for the first few levels, have proven useful in learning theory, circuit lower bounds, pseudorandomness, and quantum-classical separations. We investigate the Fourier growth of certain functions that naturally arise from communication protocols for XOR functions (partial functions evaluated on the bitwise XOR of the inputs to Alice and Bob). If a protocol $\mathcal C$ computes an XOR function, then $\mathcal C(x,y)$ is a function of the parity $x\oplus y$. This motivates us to analyze the XOR-fiber of $\mathcal C$, defined as $h(z):=\mathbb E_{x,y}[\mathcal C(x,y)|x\oplus y=z]$. We present improved Fourier growth bounds for the XOR-fibers of protocols that communicate $d$ bits. For the first level, we show a tight $O(\sqrt d)$ bound and obtain a new coin theorem, as well as an alternative proof for the tight randomized communication lower bound for Gap-Hamming. For the second level, we show an $d^{3/2}\cdot\mathrm{polylog}(n)$ bound, which improves the previous $O(d^2)$ bound by Girish, Raz, and Tal (ITCS 2021) and implies a polynomial improvement on the randomized communication lower bound for the XOR-lift of Forrelation, extending its quantum-classical gap. Our analysis is based on a new way of adaptively partitioning a relatively large set in Gaussian space to control its moments in all directions. We achieve this via martingale arguments and allowing protocols to transmit real values. We also show a connection between Fourier growth and lifting theorems with constant-sized gadgets as a potential approach to prove optimal bounds for the second level and beyond.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Uma Girish, Makrand Sinha, Avishay Tal, Kewen Wu. 2023-07-26. Fourier Growth of Communication Protocols for XOR Functions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13926

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC