Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2507.03193

A Near-Optimal Polynomial Distance Lemma Over Boolean Slices

Abstract

The celebrated Ore-DeMillo-Lipton-Schwartz-Zippel (ODLSZ) lemma asserts that n-variate non-zero polynomial functions of degree d over a field $\mathbb{F}$ are non-zero over any "grid" $S^n$ for finite subset $S \subseteq \mathbb{F}$, with probability at least $\max\{|S|^{-d/(|S|-1)},1-d/|S|\}$ over the choice of random point from the grid. In particular, over the Boolean cube ($S = \{0,1\} \subseteq \mathbb{F}$), the lemma asserts non-zero polynomials are non-zero with probability at least $2^{-d}$. In this work we extend the ODLSZ lemma optimally (up to lower-order terms) to "Boolean slices" i.e., points of Hamming weight exactly $k$. We show that non-zero polynomials on the slice are non-zero with probability $(t/n)^{d}(1 - o_{n}(1))$ where $t = \min\{k,n-k\}$ for every $d\leq k\leq (n-d)$. As with the ODLSZ lemma, our results extend to polynomials over Abelian groups. This bound is tight (upto the error term) as evidenced by degree d multilinear monomials. A particularly interesting case is the "balanced slice" ($k=n/2$) where our lemma asserts that non-zero polynomials are non-zero with roughly the same probability on the slice as on the whole cube. The behaviour of low-degree polynomials over Boolean slices has received much attention in recent years. However, the problem of proving a tight version of the ODLSZ lemma does not seem to have been considered before, except for a recent work of Amireddy, Behera, Paraashar, Srinivasan and Sudan (SODA 2025) who established a sub-optimal bound of approximately $((k/n)\cdot(1-(k/n)))^d$ using a proof similar to that of the standard ODLSZ lemma. While the statement of our result mimics that of the ODLSZ lemma, our proof is significantly more intricate and involves spectral reasoning which is employed to show that a natural way of embedding a copy of the Boolean cube inside a balanced Boolean slice is a good sampler.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Prashanth Amireddy, Amik Raj Behera, Srikanth Srinivasan, Madhu Sudan. 2025-07-03. A Near-Optimal Polynomial Distance Lemma Over Boolean Slices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03193

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