1 / 62

Noise-Insensitive Boolean-Functions are Juntas

Noise-Insensitive Boolean-Functions are Juntas. Guy Kindler & Muli Safra. Dictatorship. Def : a boolean function P([n]) {-1,1} is a monotone e - dictatorships --denoted f e --if:. We would tend to omit p. Juntas.

trisha
Download Presentation

Noise-Insensitive Boolean-Functions are Juntas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Noise-Insensitive Boolean-Functions are Juntas Guy Kindler & Muli Safra

  2. Dictatorship Def: a boolean function P([n]){-1,1} is a monotone e-dictatorships --denoted fe--if:

  3. We would tend to omit p Juntas Def: a boolean function f:P([n]){-1,1} is a j-Junta if J[n] where|J|≤ j, s.t. for every x[n]: f(x) = f(x  J) Def: f is an [, j]-Junta if  j-Junta f’ s.t. Def: f is an [, j, p]-Junta if  j-Junta f’ s.t.

  4. Codes and Boolean Functions Def: a code is a mapping of a set of n elements (log n bits’ string) to a set of m-bits strings C:[n]{0,1}m, i.e. C(e) = a1…am Def: Let Sj={e[n] | C(e)j=T} Let ={Sj}j[m] C(1) C(2) C(3) C(n) FF TTF F TT F TT T Sm={1,n} S1={2,3,n}

  5. Codes and Boolean Functions C(1) C(2) C(3) C(n) FF0 TTF F TT F TT T Def: Let Ee be the encodingof element e. • Consider {Ee}e[n]Each Ee’s truth-table represents a legal--code-word of C( since C(e) = Ee(S1)…Ee(Sm) ) Sm={1,n} S1={2,3,n}

  6. Long-Code • In the long-code L:[n] {0,1}2neach element is encoded by an 2n-bits • This is the most extensive code, as  = P([n]), i.e. the bits represent all subsets in P([n])

  7. Long-Code • Encoding an element e[n]: • Eelegally-encodes an element e if Ee = fe T F F T T

  8. Motivation – Testing Long-code • Def (a long-code test): given a code-word w, probe it in a constant number of entries, and • accept w.h.p if w is a monotone dictatorship • reject w.h.p if w is not close to any monotone dictatorship

  9. Motivation – Testing Long-code • Def(a long-code list-test): given a code-word w, probe it in a constant number of entries, and • accept w.h.p if w is a monotone dictatorship, • reject w.h.p if wis not even approximately determined by a small list of domain elements, that is, if a JuntaJ[n] s.t. f is close to f’ and f’(x)=f’(xJ) for all x • Note: a long-code list-test, distinguishes between the case w is a dictatorship, to the case w is far from a junta.

  10. Motivation – Testing Long-code • The long-code test, and the long-code list-test are essential tools in proving hardness results. Examples … • Hence finding simple sufficient-conditions for a function to be a junta is important.

  11. Background • Thm (Friedgut): a boolean function f with small average-sensitivity is an [,j]-junta • Thm (Bourgain): a boolean function f with small high-frequency weight is an [,j]-junta • Thm (Kindler&Safra): a boolean function f with small high-frequency weight in a p-biased measure is an [,j]-junta • Corollary: a boolean function f with smallnoise-sensitivity is an [,j]-junta • Parameters: average-sensitivity, high-frequency weight, noise-sensitivity

  12. Noise-Sensitivity • Idea: check how the value of f changes when the input is changed not on one, but on several coordinates. [n] I z x

  13. [n] I z x Noise-Sensitivity • Def(,p,x[n] ): Let 0<<1, and xP([n]). Then y~,p,x, if y = (x\I) z where • I~[n] is a noise subset, and • z~ pI is a replacement. Def(-noise-sensitivity): let 0<<1, then • Note: deletes a coordinate in x w.p. (1-p), adds a coordinate to x w.p. p. Hence, when p=1/2: equivalent to flipping each coordinate in x w.p. /2.

  14. Noise-Sensitivity – Cont. • Advantage: very efficiently testable (using only two queries) by a perturbation-test. • Def(perturbation-test): choose x~p, and y~,p,x, check whether f(x)=f(y).The success is proportional to the noise-sensitivity of f. • Prop: the -noise-sensitivity is given by

  15. Relation between Parameters • Prop: small ns small high-freq weight • Proof: therefore: if ns is small, then Hence the high frequencies must have small weights (as ). • Prop: small as small high-freq weight • Proof:

  16. Average and Restriction [n] Def: Let I[n],xP([n]\I), the restriction function is Def: the average function is Note: I y x [n] I y y y y y x

  17. Fourier Expansion • Prop: • Prop: • Corollary:

  18. Variation Def: the variation of f(formerly called influence): Prop: the following are equivalent definitions to the variation of f:

  19. Proof • Recall • Therefore

  20. Proof – Cont. • Recall • Therefore (by Parseval):

  21. High/Low Frequencies and their Weights Def: the high-frequency portion of f: Def: the low-frequency portion of f: Def: the high-frequency-weight is: Def: the low-frequency-weight is:

  22. Low-freq variation and Low-freq average-sensitivity Def: the low-frequency variation is: Def: the average sensitivity is And in Fourier representation: Def: the low-frequency average sensitivity is:

  23. Main Results Theorem:  constant >0 s.t. any boolean function f:P([n]){-1,1} satisfying is an [,j]-junta for j=O(-2k32k). Corollary: fix a p-biased distribution p overP([n]). Let >0 be any parameter. Set k=log1-(1/2). Then  constant >0 s.t. any boolean function f:P([n]){-1,1} satisfying is an [,j]-junta for j=O(-2k32k).

  24. First Attempt: Following Freidgut’s Proof Thm: any boolean function f is an [,j]-junta for Proof: • Specify the juntawhere, let k=O(as(f)/) and fix =2-O(k) • Show the complement of J has small variation P([n]) J

  25. P([n]) J Following Freidgut - Cont Lemma: Proof: Now, lets bound each argument: Prop: Proof: characters of sizek contribute to the average-sensitivity at least (since )

  26. we do not know whether as(f) is small!  True only since this is a {-1,0,1} function. So we cannot proceed this way with only ask! Following Freidgut - Cont Prop: Proof:

  27. Important Lemma • Lemma: >0, s.t. for any  and any function g:P([m]) , the following holds: high-freq Low-freq

  28. Beckner/Nelson/Bonami Inequality Def: let Tbe the following operator on any f, Thm: for any p≥rand≤((r-1)/(p-1))½ Corollary: for f s.t. f>k=0

  29. Probability Concentration • Simple Bound: • Proof: • Low-freq Bound: Let g:P([m])  s.t. g>k=0, let >0, then >0 s.t. • Proof: recall the corollary: 

  30. Lemma’s Proof • Now, let’s prove the lemma: • Bounding low and high freq separately:, simple bound Low-freq bound

  31. Shallow Function • Def: a function f is linear, if only singletons have non-zero weight • Def: a function f is shallow, if f is either a constant or a dictatorship. • Claim: boolean linear functions are shallow. weight Charactersize 0 1 2 3 k n

  32. Boolean Linear  Shallow • Claim: boolean linear functions are shallow. • Proof: let f be boolean linear function, we next show: • {io} s.t. (i.e. ) • And conclude, that either or i.e.f is shallow

  33. 1 -1 Claim 1 • Claim 1: let f be boolean linear function, then {io} s.t. • Proof: w.l.o.g assume • for any z{3,…,n}, considerx00=z, x10=z{1}, x01=z{2}, x11=z{1,2} • then . • Next value must be far from {-1,1}, • A contradiction! (boolean function) • Therefore ?

  34. 1 0 -1 Claim 2 • Claim 2: let f be boolean function, s.t.Then either or • Proof: consider f() and f(i0): • Then • but f is boolean, hence • therefore

  35. Proving FKN: almost-linear  close to shallow • Theorem: Let f:P([n])  be linear, • Let • let i0 be the index s.t. is maximal then • Note: f is linear, hence w.l.o.g., assume i0=1, then all we need to show is:We show that in the following claim and lemma.

  36. Corollary • Corollary: Let f be linear, andthen  a shallow booleanfunction g s.t. • Proof: let , let g be the boolean function closest to l. Then,this is true, as • is small (by theorem), • and additionally is small, since

  37. weight Each of weight no more than c Characters {} {1} {2} {i} {n} {1,2} {1,3} {n-1,n} S {1,..,n} Claim 1 • Claim 1: Let f be linear. w.l.o.g., assumethen global constant c=min{p,1-p}s.t.

  38. 1 -1 Proof of Claim1 • Proof: assume • for any z{3,…,n}, considerx00=z, x10=z{1}, x01=z{2}, x11=z{1,2} • then • Next value must be far from {-1,1} ! • A contradiction! (to ) ?

  39. note Lemma • Lemma: Let g be linear, let assume , then • Corrolary: The theorem follows from the combination of claim1 and the lemma: • Let m be the minimal index s.t. • Consider • If m=2: the theorem is obtained (by lemma) • Otherwise -- a contradiction to minimality of m :

  40. Lemma’s Proof • Lemma’s Proof: Note • Hence, all we need to show is that • Intuition: • Note that |g| and |b| are far from 0(since |g| is -close to 1, and c-close to b). • Assumeb>0, then for almost all inputs x, g(x)=|g(x)| (as ) • Hence E[g]  E[|g(x)|], and • therefore var(g)  var(|g|)

  41. Proof-map: |g|,|b| are far from 0 g(x)=|g(x)| for almost all x E[g]  E[|g|] var(g)  var(|g|)    • E2[g] - E2[|g|] = 2E2[|g|1{f<0}]  o() (by Azuma’s inequality) • We next show var(g)  var(|g|): • By the premise • however • therefore 

  42. Central Ideas: Linear Functions and Random Partition Idea 1: recall • (theorem’s premise) • Assume f is close to linear then f is close to shallow (by [FKN]). Idea 2: Let . • Partition J into I1,…,Ir. • r is large, hence w.h.p fI[x] is close to linear(low freq characters intersect each I by 1 element). P([n]) I2 Ir I I1 J

  43. P([n]) Variation Lemma I2 Ir I I1 • Lemma(variation): >0, and r>>k s.t. • Corollary: for most I and x, fI[x] is almost constant J

  44. P([n]) Using Idea2 I2 Ir I I1 • By union bound on I1,…,Ir: • (set ) • Let f’(x) = sign( AJ[f](xJ) ). f’ is the boolean function closest to AJ[f], therefore • Hence f is an [,j]-junta. J

  45. variation-Lemma - Proof Plan Lemma(variation): >0, and r>>k s.t. Sketch for proving the variation lemma: • w.h.p fI[x] is almost linear • w.h.p fI[x] is close to shallow • fI[x] cannot be close to dictatorship too often.

  46. Proof-map: • w.h.p fI[x]is almost linear • w.h.pfI[x]is close to shallow • fI[x]cannot be close todictatorshiptoo often. Lemma Proof The low frequencies characters are small, r is rather large, hence w.h.p the characters are linear at each I. P([n]) I2 Ir I I1 J

  47. Proof-map: • w.h.p fI[x]is almost linear • w.h.pfI[x]is close to shallow • fI[x]cannot be close todictatorshiptoo often. almost linear  almost shallow Theorem([FKN]): global constant M, s.t. boolean function f, shallow boolean function g, s.t. • Hence, ||fI[x]>1||2 is small fI[x] is close to shallow!

  48. Preliminary Lemma and Props • Prop: if fI[x] is a dictatorship, then coordinate i s.t. (where p is the bias). • Corollary (from [FKN]): global constant M, s.t. boolean function h, eitheror weight Total weight of no more than 1-p Characters {1} {2} {i} {n} {1,2} {1,3} {n-1,n} S {1,..,n}

  49. Proof-map: • w.h.p fI[x]is almost linear • w.h.pfI[x]is close to shallow • fI[x]cannot be close todictatorshiptoo often. Few Dictatorships • Lemma: >0, s.t. for any  and any function g:P([m]) , the following holds: • Def: Let DI be the set of xP(I), s.t. fI[x] is a dictatorship, i.e. • Next we show, that |DI| must be small, hence for most x, fI[x] is constant.

  50. Parseval Prev lemma |DI| must be small • Lemma: • Proof: let , then Each S is counted only for one index iI. (Otherwise, if S was counted for both i and j in I, then |SI|>1!)

More Related