First, the deadline for submitting home assignment #4 has been postponed to the coming Monday (the 26th, and remember that class will be held in Ziskind 261). Also, two additional classes will be given after next week's one, to compensate for the classes we missed during the semester.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Restating some announcements
First, the deadline for submitting home assignment #4 has been postponed to the coming Monday (the 26th, and remember that class will be held in Ziskind 261). Also, two additional classes will be given after next week's one, to compensate for the classes we missed during the semester.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Change of room May 26
Next week, on May 26, class will be held in Ziskind 261 and not in the usual place.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Clarifications, thoughts, and a bonus regarding ex. 4
In question 1(b), you should show that for every odd $n$, the majority function over $n$ coordinates has the highest weight on the first level out of all transitive Boolean functions on $\{-1,1\}^n$ (recall that the weight of a function $f$ on the first level is $||f^{=1}||_2^2$). You are then required to compute the limit of the weight of majority on the first level where the number of coordinates tends to infinity.
In question 3, you are required to accomplish the amazing feat of testing whether three functions are correct code-words, and in addition verifying that they satisfy an elaborate constraint, by looking at three bits total. But is this really so amazing? We know how to test that a string is a Hadamard code-word by looking at three bits, and testing whether one function equals the product of the other with a given character is really easy with even two bits queries, so we could just toss some coin and use the outcome to decide to test one of the properties that the functions need to satisfy. To pass this combination-test with very high probability, the functions must indeed satisfy (or be close to satisfying) all the required properties.
So the amazing part is actually not the fact that you can test all these things by three bit queries, it is the fact that you can do this and maintain optimal soundness (namely $\frac12+\delta$) - to get that you really have to use the same three bits to test all properties at once. By the way, the fact that $\frac12$ is the 'true' soundness barrier is not obvious here, since we are not restricting ourselves to multiplicative tests, but it is known to actually be optimal.
Question 4 deals with yet another amazing feat - testing the long-code with just two queries. And if this isn't enough, in the first part of question 5 you are asked (or at least, I meant to ask) to extend the test from question 4 to one that still uses just two bit-queries, and tests two strings for both being long-code words and for satisfying a given permutation constraint. The requirement for soundness $\delta(\epsilon)$ is a mistake - it should read $1-\epsilon-\delta(\epsilon)$, same as the expression in question 4.
In section 5(b), you need to use the test from the previous section to show a hardness of approximation result. Since I didn't yet show in class how to obtain hardness results from tests, I'll consider sections 5(a) and 5(b) as two separate questions. Moreover, you may defer submitting the answer to question 5(b) to the next exercise. However, if you choose to take a stab at it and submit it with the current exercise, you'll get a 10 point bonus if you solve the section correctly.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
correction for ex. 4 q. 1
A small correction for the first question in assignment #4: in section (b) you are required to show that Majority has the highest first level weight out of all *transitive* Boolean functions. Also, although I forgot to mention this in the exercise, you should also compute that weight.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Homework #4
Once again, a new homework assignment has been put on the course homepage. It's due on the 19th, but I think it would be beneficial if you at least look at it before the next class (at least it would enable you to try to squeeze some hints out of me on Monday..). Note that question #5 has some notions that we are only going to define on Monday though.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Decoding schemes
For applications of hardness of approximation we often need a 'decoding scheme' - for a fixed code $C$ and a given word $f$, the scheme should return some possibly random codeword $f'$ which in some sense is a decoding of $f$. The codewords $f'$ that are returned may sometimes be totally uncorrelated with $f$, and yet in some sense they are still a reasonable decodings of $f$: an example may be the case where $C$ is the long-code, $f$ is a character $f=\chi_{\{7,69\}}$, and the decoding scheme returns either $f'=\chi_{7}$ or $f'=\chi_{69}$. These are reasonable decodings of $f$, and yet their correlation with $f$ is zero.
The problem is now how to define this 'reasonable decoding scheme'. Since I failed to give a full definition in class of a reasonable decoding scheme in the case of constraint testers, let me try to compensate by giving the definition here, together with some additional explanations. I will still repeat some of the last part of today's class next week.
Let up start with the definition of a decoding scheme.
A decoding scheme for a code $C$ is a mapping $D$ that associates each string $f$ with a distribution $D(f)$ over codewords from $C$ and possibly the bottom symbol $\bot$ (the bottom symbol will basically appear when the decoding scheme gives up).
Note that in the above definition we gave the decoding scheme total freedom - it can always return just one codeword, it can return the uniform distribution over all codewords, or it can just give up and always return bottom. There are definitely many lousy decoding schemes, but in the definition of a test we'll require good ones.
We decide if a decoding scheme is good by whether the decoding it returns satisfies the constraints that we want to verify, but as noted in class someone can just try to sell us a couple of decoding schemes that always return the same strings $f',g'$, which happen to satisfy the given constraint, and have nothing to do with the original $f$ and $g$. Indeed, to make the decoding problem interesting we need to look not only on one constraint, but on a family of constraints: the decoding scheme will have to figure out $f'$ and $g'$ (given $f$ and $g$ respectively) without knowing which constraint from the family is tested.
A constraint family over codes $C_1,C_2$ is a set $\{R_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$ of relations $R_\lambda$ on $C_1$ and $C_2$. Given $f\in C_1$ and $g\in C_2$, we say that they satisfy the $\lambda$-constraint in the family if $fR_\lambda g$.
We are going to look at tests over families of constraints. The testing procedure will be given an index $\lambda$ of a relation in the family, and then query some bits from the given strings $f$ and $g$. Formally,
A $q$-query constraint tester for codes $C_1,C_2$ and a family $\{R_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in \Lambda}$, is a procedure that given two strings $f,g$ and an index $\lambda$, makes $q$ queries to $f$ and $g$ and then either accepts or rejects.
We say that the tester has completeness $c$ if when $f\in C_1$, $g\in C_2$ and $fR_\lambda g$, the test accepts with probability at least $c$. The more difficult part is to define soundness. We say that a tester has soundness $s=s(\delta)$ for $\delta$-satisfaction if there are decoding schemes $D_1$ for $C_1$ and $D_2$ for $C_2$ such that the following holds: for any strings $f,g$ and any index $\lambda$, if
$\Pr[$tester accepts on $f,g,\lambda]>s$,
implies
$\Pr_{f'\sim D_1(f), g'\sim D_2(g)}[f'R_\lambda g']\geq \delta$.
As food for thought, consider the problem of testing whether $f$ and $g$ are in the Hadamard code and that additionally $f=\chi_T g$ for a given $T$. Can you devise a three query constraint tester for this problem? Can you show some non-trivial bounds on its soundness?
Friday, April 18, 2008
Happy vacation
I wish you all a happy vacation - and to keep your brain from clogging on matzo's, don't forget to work on the home assignment.
On a slightly different note, a few of you are extremely late on handing exercises and this prevents me from talking about the solutions, which in turns hurts everyone else. If you are late on any of the submissions, you can submit without penalty until the class on Monday, April 28th. Any late submission past that date without my approval will not be accepted. There will be no postponements from now on without my explicit consent.