Advertisement

Noise Sensitivity of Boolean Functions and Applications to Percolation

  • Itai Benjamini
  • Gn. Kalai
  • Oded Schramm
Open Access
Chapter
Part of the Selected Works in Probability and Statistics book series (SWPS)

Abstract

It is shown that a large class of events in a product probability space are highly sensitive to noise, in the sense that with high probability, the configuration with an arbitrary small percent of random errors gives almost no prediction whether the event occurs. On the other hand, weighted majority functions are shown to be noise-stable. Several necessary and sufficient conditions for noise sensitivity and stability are given.

Consider, for example, bond percolation on an n + 1 by n grid. A configuration is a function that assigns to every edge the value 0 or 1. Let ω be a random configuration, selected according to the uniform measure. A crossing is a path that joins the left and right sides of the rectangle, and consists entirely of edges ω (e) = 1. By duality, the probability for having a crossing is 1/2. Fix an ε ∈ (0, 1). For each edges e let ω' (e) = ω (e) with probability 1 − ε, and ω' (e) = 1 − ω (e) with probability ε. independently of the other edges. Let þ(τ) be the probability for having a crossing in ω, conditioned on ω' = τ. Then for all n sufficiently large, P{τ : |þ(τ) − 1/2| > ε} < ε.

Keywords

Boolean Function Fourier Coefficient Uniform Measure Noise Sensitivity Polynomial Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. [1]
    J. Ambjorn, B. Durhuus and T. Jonsson, Quantum Geometry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    N. Alon and J. Spencer, The Probabilistic Method, Wiley, New York (1992).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. Beckner, Inequalities in Fourier analysis, Annals of Math. 102 (1975), 159–182.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Ben-or and N. Linial, Collective coin flipping, in Randomness and Computation (S. Micali, ed.), Academic Press, New York (1990), pp. 91–115. Earlier version: Collective coin flipping, robust voting games, and minima of Banzhaf value, Proc. 26th IEEE Symp. on the Foundation of Computer Science (1985), 408–416.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    I. Benjamini and O. Schramm, Conformal invariance of Voronoi percolation, Commun. Math. Phys., 197 (1998), 75–107.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. Benjamini, G. Kalai and O. Schramm, Noise sensitivity, concentration of measure and first passage percolation, in preparation.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Bonami, Etude des coefficients Fourier des fonctions de Ip(G), Ann. Inst. Fourier, 20 (1970), 335–402.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Boppana, Threshold functions and bounded depth monotone circuits, Proceedings of 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1984), 475–479.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Boppana, The average sensitivity of bounded depth circuits, Inform. Process. Lett. 63 (1997) 257–261.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Bourgain, J. Kahn, G. Kalai, Y. Katznelson and N. Linial, The influence of variables in product spaces, Isr. F. Math. 77 (1992), 55–64.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Bourgain and G. Kalai, Influences of variables and threshold intervals under group symmetries, Geom. Funct. Anal., 7 (1997), 438–461.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Bruck, Harmonic analysis of polynomial threshold functions. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 3 (1990), 168–177.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Bruck and R. Smolensky, Polynomial threshold functions, AC0 functions, and spectral norms. SIAM J. Comput. 21 (1992), 33–42.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Bunde and S. Havlin (ed.s’), Fractals and Disordered Systems, Springer 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, D. S. Fisher and T. Spencer, Finite-size scaling and correlation length for disordered systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986), 2999–3002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    E. Friedgut, Boolean functions with low average sensitivity, Combinatorica 18 (1998), 27–36.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    E. Friedgut, Necessary and sufficient conditions for sharp thresholds of graphs properties and the k-sat problem, Four. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1999), 1017–1054.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    E. Friedgut and G. Kalai, Every monotone graph property has a sharp threshold, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), 2993–3002.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    G. Grimmett, Percolation, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1989).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    O. Haggstrom, Y. Peres and J. E. Steif, Dynamical percolation, Ann. IHP 33 (1997), 497–528.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. Håstad, Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits, in Randomness and Computation, 5, ed. S. Micali, (1989), 143–170.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Håstad and M. Goldmann, On the power of small-depth threshold circuits, Computational Complexity, 1 (1991), 113–129.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Kahn, G. Kalai and N. Linial, The influence of variables on boolean functions, Proc. 29-th Ann. Symp. on Foundations of Comp. Sci., (1988), 68–80.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    H. Kesten, Scaling relations for 2D-percolation, Comm. Math. Phys. 109 (1987), 109–156.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    H. Kesten and Y. Zhang, Strict inequalites for some critical exponents in 2D-percolation. F. Statist. Phys. 46 (1987), 1031–1055.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    R. P. Langlands, P. Pouliot and Y. Saint-aubin, Conformal invariance in two-dimensional percolation, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 30 (1994), 1–61.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    N. Linial, and Y. Mansour and N. Nisan, Constant depth circuits, Fourier transform, and learnability, F. Assoc. Comput. Math. 40 (1993), 607–620.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    V. V. Petrov, Limit theorems of probability theory, Oxford University Press, (1995).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    L. Russo, A note on percolation, ZW. 43 (1978), 39–48.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    P. Seymour and D. Welsh, Percolation probabilities on the square lattice. Advances in Graph Theory. Ann. Discrete Math. 3 (1978), 227–245.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    M. Talagrand, On Russo’s approximate zero-one law, Ann. of Prob. 22 (1994), 1576–1587.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    M. Talagrand, Concentration of measure and isoperimetric inequalities in product spaces, Publ. I.H.E.S., 81 (1995), 73–205.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    M. Talagrand, How much are increasing sets positively correlated? Combinatorica 16 (1996), 243–258.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    B. Tsirelson, Fourier-Walsh coefficients for a coalescing flow (discrete time), preprint, math.PR/9903068.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    B. Tsirelson, The Five noises, preprint.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    A. Yao, Circuits and local computation, Proceedings of 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, (1989), 186–196.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.The Hebrew UniversityGivat Ram, JerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations