computational complexity

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 311–358 | Cite as

Property Testing Lower Bounds via Communication Complexity

Article

Abstract

We develop a new technique for proving lower bounds in property testing, by showing a strong connection between testing and communication complexity. We give a simple scheme for reducing communication problems to testing problems, thus allowing us to use known lower bounds in communication complexity to prove lower bounds in testing. This scheme is general and implies a number of new testing bounds, as well as simpler proofs of several known bounds.

For the problem of testing whether a Boolean function is k-linear (a parity function on k variables), we achieve a lower bound of Ω(k) queries, even for adaptive algorithms with two-sided error, thus confirming a conjecture of Goldreich (2010a). The same argument behind this lower bound also implies a new proof of known lower bounds for testing related classes such as k-juntas. For some classes, such as the class of monotone functions and the class of s-sparse GF(2) polynomials, we significantly strengthen the best known bounds.

Keywords

Property testing communication complexity lower bounds 

Subject classification

68Q17 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Noga Alon & Eric Blais (2010). Testing Boolean Function Isomorphism. In Proc. 14th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 394–405.Google Scholar
  2. Ziv Bar-Yossef, T. S. Jayram, Ravi Kumar & D. Sivakumar (2002). An Information Statistics Approach to Data Stream and Communication Complexity. In Proc. 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 209–218.Google Scholar
  3. Tugkan Batu, Ronitt Rubinfeld & Patrick White (1999). Fast Approximate PCPs for Multidimensional Bin-Packing Problems. In Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 245–256.Google Scholar
  4. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Elena Grigorescu, Kyomin Jung, Sofya Raskhodnikova & David P. Woodruff (2009). Transitive-Closure Spanners of the Hypercube and the Hypergrid. Technical Report TR09-046, ECCC.Google Scholar
  5. Eric Blais (2008). Improved Bounds for Testing Juntas. In Proc. 12th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 317–330.Google Scholar
  6. Eric Blais (2009). Testing Juntas Nearly Optimally. In Proc. 41st Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 151–158.Google Scholar
  7. Eric Blais, Joshua Brody & Kevin Matulef (2011). Property Testing Lower Bounds via Communication Complexity. In Proc. 26th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.Google Scholar
  8. Eric Blais, Joshua Brody & Kevin Matulef (2012). Erratum to Property Testing Lower Bounds via Communication Complexity.Google Scholar
  9. Eric Blais & Daniel Kane (2011). Testing Properties of Linear Functions. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. Eric Blais & Ryan O’Donnell (2010). Lower Bounds for Testing Function Isomorphism. In Proc. 25th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 235–246.Google Scholar
  11. Manuel Blum, Michael Luby & Ronitt Rubinfeld (1993). Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 47, 549–595. Earlier version in STOC’90.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jop Briët, Sourav Chakraborty, David García Soriano & Arie Matsliah (2010). Monotonicity Testing and Shortest-Path Routing on the Cube. In Proc. 14th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  13. Joshua Brody, Amit Chakrabarti, Oded Regev, Thomas Vidick & Ronald de Wolf (2010). Better Gap-Hamming Lower Bounds via Better Round Elimination. In Proc. 14th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  14. Joshua Brody, Kevin Matulef & Chenggang Wu (2011). Lower Bounds for Testing Computability by Small-Width Branching Programs. In Proc. 8th Annual Theory and Applications of Models of Computation.Google Scholar
  15. Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve & Avi Wigderson (1998). Quantum vs. classical communication and computation. In Proc. 30th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 63–68.Google Scholar
  16. Amit Chakrabarti & Oded Regev (2011). An Optimal Lower Bound on the Communication Complexity of Gap-Hamming-Distance. In Proc. 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing.Google Scholar
  17. Sourav Chakraborty, David García Soriano & Arie Matsliah (2011a). Efficient Sample Extractors for Juntas with Applications. In Proc. 38th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming.Google Scholar
  18. Sourav Chakraborty, David García Soriano & Arie Matsliah (2011b). Nearly tight bounds for testing function isomorphism. In Proc. 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms.Google Scholar
  19. Hana Chockler & Dan Gutfreund (2004). A lower bound for testing juntas. Information Processing Letters 90(6), 301–305.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ilias Diakonikolas, Homin Lee, Kevin Matulef, Krzysztof Onak, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Rocco Servedio & Andrew Wan (2007). Testing for Concise Representations. In Proc. 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 549–558.Google Scholar
  21. Yevgeniy Dodis, Oded Goldreich, Eric Lehman, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Dana Ron & Alex Samorodnitsky (1999). Improved testing algorithms for monotonicity. In Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 97–108.Google Scholar
  22. Funda Ergun, Sampath Kannan, Ravi Kumar, Ronitt Rubenfeld, Mahesh Viswanathan (2000) J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 717–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feller W. (1968) An introduction to probability theory and its applications, volume 2. John Wiley, SonsGoogle Scholar
  24. Eldar Fischer, Guy Kindler, Dana Ron, Safra Shmuel , Samorodnitsky Alex (2004) Testing juntas. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 68: 753–787MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eldar Fischer, Eric Lehman, Ilan Newman, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Ronitt Rubinfeld & Alex Samorodnitsky (2002). Monotonicity testing over general poset domains. In Proc. 34th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 474–483.Google Scholar
  26. Oded Goldreich (2010a). On Testing Computability by Small Width OBDDs. In Proc. 14th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 574–587.Google Scholar
  27. Oded Goldreich (editor) (2010b). Property Testing: Current Research and Surveys, volume 6390 of LNCS. Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Oded Goldreich, Shafi Goldwasser, Eric Lehman, Dana Ron, Alex Samorodnitsky (2000) Testing monotonicity. Combinatorica 20(3): 301–337MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oded Goldreich, Shafi Goldwasser, Dana Ron (1998) Property Testing and its Connection to Learning and Approximation. J. ACM 45(4): 653–750MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johan Håstad & Avi Wigderson (2007). The Randomized Communication Complexity of Set Disjointness. Theory of Computing 211–219.Google Scholar
  31. Piotr Indyk & David Woodruff (2003). Tight Lower Bounds for the Distinct Elements Problem. In Proc. 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 283–289.Google Scholar
  32. Bala Kalyanasundaram, Georg Schnitger (1992) The Probabilistic Communication Complexity of Set Intersection. SIAM J. Disc. Math. 5(4): 547–557Google Scholar
  33. Eyal Kushilevitz & Noam Nisan (1997). Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Kevin Matulef, Ryan O’Donnell, Ronitt Rubinfeld & Rocco Servedio (2009). Testing {-1,1}-weight halfspaces. In Proc. 13th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  35. Peter Bro Miltersen, Noam Nisan, Shmuel Safra & Avi Wigderson (1995). On data structures and asymmetric communication complexity. In Proc. 27th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 103–111.Google Scholar
  36. Ryan O’Donnell (2008). Some topics in analysis of Boolean function. In Proc. 40th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 569–578.Google Scholar
  37. Michal Parnas, Dana Ron, Ronitt Rubinfeld (2003) On Testing Convexity and Submodularity. SIAM J. Comput. 32(5): 1158–1184MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michal Parnas, Dana Ron, Alex Samorodnitsky (2002) Testing basic Boolean formulae. SIAM J. Disc. Math. 16(1): 20–46MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Alexander Razborov (1990). On the Distributional Complexity of Disjointness. In Proc. 17thInternational Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 249–253.Google Scholar
  40. Dana Ron (2008) Property Testing: A Learning Theory Perspective. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 1(3): 307–402MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Dana Ron (2009) Algorithmic and Analysis Techniques in Property Testing. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 5(2): 73–205MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dana Ron & Gilad Tsur (2009). Testing Computability by Width Two OBDDs. In Proc. 13th International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 686–699.Google Scholar
  43. Dana Ron & Gilad Tsur (2011). On Approximating the Number of Relevant Variables in a Function. In Proc. 15thInternational Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science, 676–687.Google Scholar
  44. Ronitt Rubinfeld, Madhu Sudan (1996) Robust characterizations of polynomials with applications to program testing. SIAM J. Comput. 25: 252–271MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. C. Seshadhri & Jan Vondrák (2011). Is submodularity testable? In Proc. 2nd Innovations in Computer Science.Google Scholar
  46. Ronald de Wolf (2008) A Brief Introduction to Fourier Analysis on the Boolean Cube. Theory of Computing, Graduate Surveys 1: 1–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.IIIS, Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations