Abstract
The standard definition of property testing endows the tester with the ability to make arbitrary queries to “elements” of the tested object. In contrast, sample-based testers only obtain independently distributed elements (a.k.a. labeled samples) of the tested object. While sample-based testers were defined by Goldreich, Goldwasser, and Ron (JACM 1998), with few exceptions, most research in property testing has focused on query-based testers.
In this work, we advance the study of sample-based property testers by providing several general positive results as well as by revealing relations between variants of this testing model. In particular:
—We show that certain types of query-based testers yield sample-based testers of sublinear sample complexity. For example, this holds for a natural class of proximity oblivious testers.
—We study the relation between distribution-free sample-based testers and one-sided error sample-based testers w.r.t. the uniform distribution.
While most of this work ignores the time complexity of testing, one part of it does focus on this aspect. The main result in this part is a sublinear-time sample-based tester, in the dense graphs model, for k-colorability, for any k ⩾ 2.
- N. Alon and M. Krivelevich. 2002. Testing k-colorability. SIAM J. Discr. Math. 15, 2 (2002), 211--227. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- N. Alon, M. Krivelevich, I. Newman, and M Szegedy. 2001. Regular languages are testable with a constant number of queries. SIAM J. Comput. (2001), 1842--1862. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Balcan, E. Blais, A. Blum, and L. Yang. 2012. Active property testing. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 21--30. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- T. Batu, L. Fortnow, R. Rubinfeld, W. Smith, and P. White. 2000. Testing that distributions are close. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 259--269. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Blum, M. Luby, and R. Rubinfeld. 1993. Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems. J. ACM 47 (1993), 549--595. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. Devroye. 1983. The equivalence of weak, strong and complete convergence in L1 for kernel density estimates. Ann. Stat. 11, 3 (1983), 896--904.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Y. Dodis, O. Goldreich, E. Lehman, S. Raskhodnikova, D. Ron, and A. Samorodnitsky. 1999. Improved testing algorithms for monotonicity. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science (RANDOM). 97--108. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- E. Fischer, Y. Goldhirsh, and O. Lachish. 2013. Some Properties are not Even Partially Testable. Technical Report TR13-082. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC).Google Scholar
- E. Fischer, Y. Goldhirsh, and O. Lachish. 2014. Partial tests, universal tests and decomposability. In Proceedings of the 5th Innovations in Computer Science Conference (ITCS). 474--483. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- E. Fischer, E. Lehman, I. Newman, S. Raskhodnikova, R. Rubinfeld, and A. Samorodnitsky. 2002. Monotonicity testing over general poset domains. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC). 474--483. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D. Glasner and R. A. Servedio. 2009. Distribution-free testing lower bound for basic boolean functions. Theor. Comput. 5, 1 (2009), 191--216.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- O. Goldreich. 2010. Introduction to testing graph properties. In Property Testing: Current Research and Surveys. LNCS, Vol. 6390. Springer, Berlin. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich (Ed.). 2010. Property Testing: Current Research and Surveys. LNCS, Vol. 6390. Springer, Berlin. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich, S. Goldwasser, E. Lehman, D. Ron, and A. Samorodnitsky. 2000. Testing monotonicity. Combinatorica 20, 3 (2000), 301--337.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- O. Goldreich, S. Goldwasser, and A. Nussboim. 2010. On the implementation of huge random objects. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 7 (2010), 2761--2822. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich, S. Goldwasser, and D. Ron. 1998. Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation. J. ACM 45, 4 (1998), 653--750. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich and T. Kaufman. 2011. Proximity oblivious testing and the role of invariances. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (RANDOM). 579--592. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich and D. Ron. 2002. Property testing in bounded degree graphs. Algorithmica 32, 2 (2002), 302--343.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich and D. Ron. 2011. On proximity oblivious testing. SIAM J. Comput. 40, 2 (2011), 534--566. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- O. Goldreich and I. Shinkar. 2012. Two-sided error proximity oblivious testing. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (RANDOM). 565--578.Google Scholar
- O. Goldreich and L. Trevisan. 2003. Three theorems regarding testing graph properties. Random Struct. Algorith. 23, 1 (2003), 23--57. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- T. Gur and R. Rothblum. 2013. Non-Interactive Proofs of Proximity. Technical Report TR13-078. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC).Google Scholar
- J. Katz and L. Trevisan. 2000. On the efficiency of local decoding procedures for error-correcting codes. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC). ACM, New York, NY, 80--86. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- T. Kaufman and M. Sudan. 2008. Algebraic property testing: The role of invariances. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC). ACM, New York, NY, 403--412. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Kearns and D. Ron. 2000. Testing problems with sub-learning sample complexity. J. Comput. System Sci. 61, 3 (2000), 428--456. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Kearns and U. Vazirani. 1994. An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D. E. Knuth. 1981. The Art of Computer Programming Vol. 2 (Seminumerical Algorithms). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA, 1969 (first edition) and 1981 (second edition).Google Scholar
- M. Parnas, D. Ron, and A. Samorodnitsky. 2002. Testing basic boolean formulae. SIAM J. Discr. Math 16, 1 (2002), 20--46. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Raskhodnikova and A. Smith. 2006. A Note on Adaptivity in Testing Properties of Bounded Degree Graphs. Technical Report TR06-089. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC).Google Scholar
- D. Ron. 2008. Property testing: A learning theory perspective. Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 1, 3 (2008), 307--402. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D. Ron. 2010. Algorithmic and analysis techniques in property testing. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 5 (2010), 73--205. Issue 2. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Rubinfeld and M. Sudan. 1996. Robust characterization of polynomials with applications to program testing. SIAM J. Comput. 25, 2 (1996), 252--271. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Sudan. 2010. Invariance in property testing. In Property Testing: Current Research and Surveys. LNCS, Vol. 6390. Springer, Berlin, 211--227. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. Valiant and P. Valiant. 2011. Estimating the unseen: An n/log (n)-sample estimator for entropy and support size, shown optimal via new CLTs. In Proceedings of the Fourty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC). 685--694. See ECCC TR10-180 for the Algorithm, and TR10-179 for the Lower Bound. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. Valiant and P. Valiant. 2015. Instance optimal learning. CoRR abs/1504.05321 (2015).Google Scholar
- L. G. Valiant. 1984. A theory of the learnable. CACM 27, 11 (Nov. 1984), 1134--1142. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
On Sample-Based Testers
Recommendations
VC dimension and distribution-free sample-based testing
STOC 2021: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of ComputingWe consider the problem of determining which classes of functions can be tested more efficiently than they can be learned, in the distribution-free sample-based model that corresponds to the standard PAC learning setting. Our main result shows that ...
On Sample-Based Testers
ITCS '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer ScienceThe standard definition of property testing endows the tester with the ability to make arbitrary queries to "elements" of the tested object. In contrast, sample-based testers only obtain independently distributed elements (a.k.a. labeled samples) of the ...
Efficient sample extractors for juntas with applications
ICALP'11: Proceedings of the 38th international colloquim conference on Automata, languages and programming - Volume Part IWe develop a query-efficient sample extractor for juntas, that is, a probabilistic algorithm that can simulate random samples from the core of a k-junta f : {0, 1}n → {0, 1} given oracle access to a function f′ : {0, 1}n → {0, 1} that is only close to f...






Comments