Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2411.14431

On Optimal Testing of Linearity

Abstract

Linearity testing has been a focal problem in property testing of functions. We combine different known techniques and observations about linearity testing in order to resolve two recent versions of this task. First, we focus on the online manipulations model introduced by Kalemaj, Raskhodnikova and Varma (ITCS 2022 \& Theory of Computing 2023). In this model, up to $t$ data entries are adversarially manipulated after each query is answered. Ben-Eliezer, Kelman, Meir, and Raskhodnikova (ITCS 2024) showed an asymptotically optimal linearity tester that is resilient to $t$ manipulations per query, but their approach fails if $t$ is too large. We extend this result, showing an optimal tester for almost any possible value of $t$. First, we simplify their result when $t$ is small, and for larger values of $t$ we instead use sample-based testers, as defined by Goldreich and Ron (ACM Transactions on Computation Theory 2016). A key observation is that sample-based testing is resilient to online manipulations, but still achieves optimal query complexity for linearity when $t$ is large. We complement our result by showing that when $t$ is \emph{very} large, any reasonable property, and in particular linearity, cannot be tested at all. Second, we consider linearity over the reals with proximity parameter $\varepsilon$. Fleming and Yoshida (ITCS 2020) gave a tester using $O(1/\varepsilon\ \cdot log(1/\varepsilon))$ queries. We simplify their algorithms and modify the analysis accordingly, showing an optimal tester that only uses $O(1/\varepsilon)$ queries. This modification works for the low-degree testers presented in Arora, Bhattacharyya, Fleming, Kelman, and Yoshida (SODA 2023) as well, resulting in optimal testers for degree-$d$ polynomials, for any constant degree $d$.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vipul Arora, Esty Kelman, Uri Meir. 2024-11-21. On Optimal Testing of Linearity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14431

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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