Search

Testing whether the observed data conforms to a purported model (probability distribution) is a basic and fundamental statistical task, and one that is by now well understood. However, the standard formulation, identity testing, fails to capture many settings of interest; in this work, we focus on one such natural setting, identity testing under promise of permutation. In this setting, the unknown distribution is assumed to be equal to the purported one, up to a relabeling (permutation) of the model: however, due to a systematic error in the reporting of the data, this relabeling may not be the identity. The goal is then to test identity under this assumption: equivalently, whether this systematic labeling error led to a data distribution statistically far from the reference model., LIPIcs, Vol. 212, 32nd International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2021), pages 55:1-55:17

We introduce and study the model of list learning with attribute noise. Learning with attribute noise was introduced by Shackelford and Volper (COLT 1988) as a variant of PAC learning, in which the algorithm has access to noisy examples and uncorrupted labels, and the goal is to recover an accurate hypothesis. Sloan (COLT 1988) and Goldman and Sloan (Algorithmica 1995) discovered information-theoretic limits to learning in this model, which have impeded further progress. In this article we extend the model to that of list learning, drawing inspiration from the list-decoding model in coding theory, and its recent variant studied in the context of learning. On the positive side, we show that sparse conjunctions can be efficiently list learned under some assumptions on the underlying ground-truth distribution. On the negative side, our results show that even in the list-learning model, efficient learning of parities and majorities is not possible regardless of the representation used.

Motivated by the question of data quantization and "binning," we revisit the problem of identity testing of discrete probability distributions. Identity testing (a.k.a. one-sample testing), a fundamental and by now well-understood problem in distribution testing, asks, given a reference distribution (model) $\mathbf{q}$ and samples from an unknown distribution $\mathbf{p}$, both over $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, whether $\mathbf{p}$ equals $\mathbf{q}$, or is significantly different from it. In this paper, we introduce the related question of 'identity up to binning,' where the reference distribution $\mathbf{q}$ is over $k \ll n$ elements: the question is then whether there exists a suitable binning of the domain $[n]$ into $k$ intervals such that, once "binned," $\mathbf{p}$ is equal to $\mathbf{q}$. We provide nearly tight upper and lower bounds on the sample complexity of this new question, showing both a quantitative and qualitative difference with the vanilla identity testing one, and answering an open question of Canonne (2019). Finally, we discuss several extensions and related research directions.

A Boolean k-monotone function defined over a finite poset domain D alternates between the values 0 and 1 at most k times on any ascending chain in D. Therefore, k-monotone functions are natural generalizations of the classical monotone functions, which are the 1-monotone functions. Motivated by the recent interest in k-monotone functions in the context of circuit complexity and learning theory, and by the central role that monotonicity testing plays in the context of property testing, we initiate a systematic study of k-monotone functions, in the property testing model. In this model, the goal is to distinguish functions that are k-monotone (or are close to being k-monotone) from functions that are far from being k-monotone. Our results include the following: 1. We demonstrate a separation between testing k-monotonicity and testing monotonicity, on the hypercube domain {0,1}^d, for k >= 3; 2. We demonstrate a separation between testing and learning on {0,1}^d, for k=\omega(\log d): testing k-monotonicity can be performed with 2^{O(\sqrt d . \log d . \log{1/\eps})} queries, while learning k-monotone functions requires 2^{\Omega(k . \sqrt d .{1/\eps})} queries (Blais et al. (RANDOM 2015)). 3. We present a tolerant test for functions f\colon[n]^d\to \{0,1\}$with complexity independent of n, which makes progress on a problem left open by Berman et al. (STOC 2014). Our techniques exploit the testing-by-learning paradigm, use novel applications of Fourier analysis on the grid [n]^d, and draw connections to distribution testing techniques. Our techniques exploit the testing-by-learning paradigm, use novel applications of Fourier analysis on the grid [n]^d, and draw connections to distribution testing techniques.

Given an implicit $n\times n$ matrix $A$ with oracle access $x^TA x$ for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, we study the query complexity of randomized algorithms for estimating the trace of the matrix. This problem has many applications in quantum physics, machine learning, and pattern matching. Two metrics are commonly used for evaluating the estimators: i) variance; ii) a high probability multiplicative-approximation guarantee. Almost all the known estimators are of the form $\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k x_i^T A x_i$ for $x_i\in \mathbb{R}^n$ being i.i.d. for some special distribution. Our main results are summarized as follows. We give an exact characterization of the minimum variance unbiased estimator in the broad class of linear nonadaptive estimators (which subsumes all the existing known estimators). We also consider the query complexity lower bounds for any (possibly nonlinear and adaptive) estimators: (1) We show that any estimator requires $\Omega(1/\epsilon)$ queries to have a guarantee of variance at most $\epsilon$. (2) We show that any estimator requires $\Omega(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\log \frac{1}{\delta})$ queries to achieve a $(1\pm\epsilon)$-multiplicative approximation guarantee with probability at least $1 - \delta$. Both above lower bounds are asymptotically tight. As a corollary, we also resolve a conjecture in the seminal work of Avron and Toledo (Journal of the ACM 2011) regarding the sample complexity of the Gaussian Estimator., Comment: full version of the paper in ICALP 2014