1 / 18

Sub-Constant Error Low Degree Test of Almost-Linear Size

Sub-Constant Error Low Degree Test of Almost-Linear Size. Dana Moshkovitz Weizmann Institute Ran Raz Weizmann Institute. n. s(n). Probabilistically Checkable Proofs [AS92,ALMSS92]. Is  satisfiable?. NP:. size. PCP:. error. Completeness:  sat. ) 9A , Pr[ acc ] = 1 .

timothy-salas
Télécharger la présentation

Sub-Constant Error Low Degree Test of Almost-Linear Size

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. 38th Symposium on Theory Of Computing, Seattle, May 21-23, 2006 Sub-Constant Error Low Degree Testof Almost-Linear Size Dana Moshkovitz Weizmann Institute Ran Raz Weizmann Institute

  2. n s(n) Probabilistically Checkable Proofs [AS92,ALMSS92] Is  satisfiable? NP: size PCP: error • Completeness:sat. )9A, Pr[acc] = 1. • Soundness:notsat. )8A, Pr[acc] ·.

  3. Importance of PCP Theorem • Shows proofs are surprisingly powerful. • Enables hardness of approximation results. • Yields codes with local testing/decoding properties.

  4. Decreasing Error • Prop:error¸1/||#queries • Hence, to decrease error need either: useful for applications easy! via repetition enlarge alphabet || enlarge #queries

  5. Decreasing Error • [AS92,ALMSS92]: constant error PCP. • [ArSu97,RaSa97,DFKRS99]: sub-const error PCP (taking super-const ||). sub-const?? error o(1) 0.5

  6. Decreasing Size size • [AS92,ALMSS92]: size=nc for large constant c. • [GS02,BSVW03,BGHSV04]: almost-linear sizen1+o(1) PCPs • [Dinur06] (based on [BS05]): size=n¢polylog n • Only constant error! nc n1+o(1) n almost linear??

  7. Our Motivation size Want: PCP with both • sub-constant error and • almost-linear size nc almost linear?? n1+o(1) n sub-const?? error o(1)

  8. Our Work We show: Low Degree Tester: • sub-constant error • almost-linear size Historically: Low Degree Tester(non-trivially))PCP

  9. Low Degree Testing • F = finite field; m = dimension; d = degree. • Goal: verify f: Fm!F is close to being polynomial of total degree · d. [|F|m= input size;|F|Àd,m] f : Fm!F Q(x1,…,xm) deg Q ·d

  10. Low Degree Tester size f : Fm! F • toss coins • query f and A in O(1) places • accept/reject A low degree tester Completeness:f is deg ·d poly ! 9Aalways accept Soundness: for any A, if Pr[accept]>0(=error), 'Pr[accept] agreement of f (with poly of deg · d)

  11. y z The Line Vs. Point Test [Rubinfeld,Sudan] Observation:FixQ:Fm!F, degQ·d. Restriction of Q to any line z+t¢y (for z,y2Fm), namely Q(z+t¢y), is a univariate polynomial of deg ·d. Moreover, this characterizesm-variate polynomials over F of deg·d. The proof A: for every line l, A(l) = univariate poly of deg·d[allegedrestriction of f to l]

  12. Pick random z2Fm, y2Fm • Check A()(z) = f(z) y z The Line Vs. Point Test [Rubinfeld,Sudan] • makes two queries • clearly complete • quadratic size ¼|Fm|2 • [RuSu90,AS92,ALMSS92,FS93,PS94]: error <1.

  13. Sub-Constant Error • [RaSa97]:Plane vs. Point has sub-const errorpoly(m,d)/|F|. • [ArSu97]: Line vs. Point has sub-const errorpoly(m,d)/|F|. sub-const?? error 1 0.5 0

  14. Almost-Linear Size size • [GS02]: random (non-explicit)set of |F|m(1+o(1)) lines • [BSVW03]: -biased set of directions • |F|m¢polylog|F|m lines • constant error n2 n1+o(1) n almost linear??

  15. y1 y2 Why Can’t Get Sub-Const. Error? Main Obstacle in taking directions =small-biased set SµFm: y1,y22S

  16. Our Idea Fix large enough subfieldHµF. directions = Hm • DifferentHm is not -biased in Fm when HF • Short|H|·|F|o(1)!|H|m·(|F|m)o(1) • Useful Can take F=GF(2r¢k) • NaturalH=F ! standard testers

  17. Our Results Construction:Plane vs. Point low degree tester with: • size |F|m¢|H|2m • error c¢m((1/|H|)1/8 + (md/|F|)1/4) Ifm8¿|H|·|F|o(1), then sub-constant error and almost linear size.

  18. Fm Sampling Lemma Lemma (Sampling): Let AµFm. Pick random z2Fm, y2Hm, l= { z+t¢y | t2F }. • For H=F, follows from pairwise independence • [BSVW03]: when y 2 -biased set : same lemma with (1/|F|+ ) instead of 1/|H| • Holds for any subsetHµF • Proof via Fourier analysis

More Related