skip to main content
research-article

Toward a General Direct Product Testing Theorem

Published:16 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The direct product encoding of a string a∈ { 0,1}n on an underlying domain V⊆ (k[n]) is a function DPV(a) that gets as input a set SV and outputs a restricted to S. In the direct product testing problem, we are given a function F:V→ { 0,1}k, and our goal is to test whether F is close to a direct product encoding—that is, whether there exists some a∈ { 0,1}n such that on most sets S, we have F(S)=DPV(a)(S). A natural test is as follows: select a pair (S,S′)∈ V according to some underlying distribution over V× V, query F on this pair, and check for consistency on their intersection. Note that the preceding distribution may be viewed as a weighted graph over the vertex set V and is referred to as a test graph.

The testability of direct products was studied over various domains and test graphs: Dinur and Steurer (CCC’14) analyzed it when V equals the k-th slice of the Boolean hypercube and the test graph is a member of the Johnson graph family. Dinur and Kaufman (FOCS’17) analyzed it for the case where V is the set of faces of a Ramanujan complex, where in this case ∣V∣=Ok(n). In this article, we study the testability of direct products in a general setting, addressing the question: what properties of the domain and the test graph allow one to prove a direct product testing theorem?

Towards this goal, we introduce the notion of coordinate expansion of a test graph. Roughly speaking, a test graph is a coordinate expander if it has global and local expansion, and has certain nice intersection properties on sampling. We show that whenever the test graph has coordinate expansion, it admits a direct product testing theorem. Additionally, for every k and n, we provide a direct product domain V⊆ (kn) of size n, called the sliding window domain, for which we prove direct product testability.

References

  1. Sanjeev Arora and Madhu Sudan. 1997. Improved low-degree testing and its applications. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. 485--495. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/258533.258642Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Amey Bhangale, Irit Dinur, and Inbal Livni Navon. 2017. Cube vs. cube low degree test. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS’17). Article 40, 31 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.40Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Andries E. Brouwer, Sebastian M. Cioaba, Ferdinand Ihringer, and Matt McGinnis. 2018. The smallest eigenvalues of Hamming graphs, Johnson graphs and other distance-regular graphs with classical parameters. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 133 (2018), 88--121. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2018.04.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Roee David, Irit Dinur, Elazar Goldenberg, Guy Kindler, and Igor Shinkar. 2017. Direct sum testing. SIAM J. Comput. 46, 4 (2017), 1336--1369. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1061655Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Irit Dinur and Elazar Goldenberg. 2008. Locally testing direct product in the low error range. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’08). 613--622. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2008.26Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Irit Dinur, Prahladh Harsha, Tali Kaufman, Inbal Livni Navon, and Amnon Ta-Shma. 2019. List decoding with double samplers. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’19). 2134--2153. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975482.129Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Irit Dinur and Tali Kaufman. 2017. High dimensional expanders imply agreement expanders. In Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). 974--985. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2017.94Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Irit Dinur, Subhash Khot, Guy Kindler, Dor Minzer, and Muli Safra. 2018. On non-optimally expanding sets in Grassmann graphs. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’18). 940--951. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3188745.3188806Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Irit Dinur and Inbal Livni Navon. 2017. Exponentially small soundness for the direct product z-test. In Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference (CCC’17). Article 29, 50 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2017.29Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Irit Dinur and Omer Reingold. 2006. Assignment testers: Towards a combinatorial proof of the PCP theorem. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 4 (Dec. 2006), 975--1024. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539705446962Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Irit Dinur and David Steurer. 2014. Direct product testing. In Proceedings of the IEEE 29th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’14). 188--196. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2014.27Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Oded Goldreich and Shmuel Safra. 2000. A combinatorial consistency lemma with application to proving the PCP theorem. SIAM J. Comput. 29, 4 (2000), 1132--1154. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539797315744Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Avi Wigderson. 2012. New direct-product testers and 2-query PCPs. SIAM J. Comput. 41, 6 (2012), 1722--1768. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/09077299XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Subhash Khot, Dor Minzer, Dana Moshkovitz, and Muli Safra. 2018. Small set expansion in the Johnson graph. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity 25 (2018), 78. https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/078.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ran Raz and Shmuel Safra. 1997. A sub-constant error-probability low-degree test, and a sub-constant error-probability PCP characterization of NP. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’97). ACM, New York, NY, 475--484. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/258533.258641Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Toward a General Direct Product Testing Theorem

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!