Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2409.06594

How to Verify Any (Reasonable) Distribution Property: Computationally Sound Argument Systems for Distributions

Tal Herman·Guy Rothblum
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As statistical analyses become more central to science, industry and society, there is a growing need to ensure correctness of their results. Approximate correctness can be verified by replicating the entire analysis, but can we verify without replication? Building on a recent line of work, we study proof-systems that allow a probabilistic verifier to ascertain that the results of an analysis are approximately correct, while drawing fewer samples and using less computational resources than would be needed to replicate the analysis. We focus on distribution testing problems: verifying that an unknown distribution is close to having a claimed property. Our main contribution is a interactive protocol between a verifier and an untrusted prover, which can be used to verify any distribution property that can be decided in polynomial time given a full and explicit description of the distribution. If the distribution is at statistical distance $\varepsilon$ from having the property, then the verifier rejects with high probability. This soundness property holds against any polynomial-time strategy that a cheating prover might follow, assuming the existence of collision-resistant hash functions (a standard assumption in cryptography). For distributions over a domain of size $N$, the protocol consists of $4$ messages and the communication complexity and verifier runtime are roughly $\widetilde{O}\left(\sqrt{N} / \varepsilon^2 \right)$. The verifier's sample complexity is $\widetilde{O}\left(\sqrt{N} / \varepsilon^2 \right)$, and this is optimal up to $\polylog(N)$ factors (for any protocol, regardless of its communication complexity). Even for simple properties, approximately deciding whether an unknown distribution has the property can require quasi-linear sample complexity and running time. For any such property, our protocol provides a quadratic speedup over replicating the analysis.

Explore related subjects

cs.CCcs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tal Herman, Guy Rothblum. 2024-09-10. How to Verify Any (Reasonable) Distribution Property: Computationally Sound Argument Systems for Distributions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06594

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Formalizing PARITY Circuit Lower Bounds in Lean

We formalize Hastad's PARITY lower bound in Lean using the switching lemma. For every fixed d >= 2, formulas and DAG circuits of computation depth at most d computing PARITY on n inputs require size exp(Omega_d(n^(1/(d-1)))) for all sufficiently large n. This matches the classical upper bound up to constants in the exponent and implies that PARITY is not in nonuniform AC0. We also construct a polynomial-size, logarithmic-depth bounded-fan-in formula family for PARITY, providing a witness to NC1 is not a subset of AC0 for the formalized models. The Lean source code is available at https://github.com/formalcs/circuit-complexity and is checked with Lean 4.33.1 and mathlib 4.33.1.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Constant-Coin Complete-Information Debates for $\mathsf{P}$ with Arbitrarily Small Strong Error

We study complete-information debate systems in which a probabilistic finite-state verifier reads the alternating messages of a prover and a refuter. Demirci, Say, and Yakaryılmaz showed that every language in $\mathsf{P}$ has such debates checkable with a constant number of random bits and arbitrarily small weak error. Their strong-error construction, which also counts nontermination as failure, did not permit arbitrary error reduction. We close this gap: for every $L\in\mathsf{P}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a constant-space verifier using a constant number of private coin tosses that has perfect completeness and strong error at most $\varepsilon$. The verifier simulates a polynomial-time alternating multihead finite automaton, privately spot-checking one of its input heads. The key observation is that, on a nonmember, the refuter may concede any round in which the prover first misreports a head reading. This ensures termination against every prover when the refuter follows the specified strategy, and permits strong-error reduction by repetition.

cs.CC↗