skip to main content

Title: Sampling Correctors
In many situations, sample data is obtained from a noisy or imperfect source. In order to address such corruptions, this paper introduces the concept of a sampling corrector. Such algorithms use structure that the distribution is purported to have, in order to allow one to make “on-the-fly” corrections to samples drawn from probability distributions. These algorithms then act as filters between the noisy data and the end user. We show connections between sampling correctors, distribution learning algorithms, and distribution property testing algorithms. We show that these connections can be utilized to expand the applicability of known distribution learning and property testing algorithms as well as to achieve improved algorithms for those tasks. As a first step, we show how to design sampling correctors using proper learning algorithms. We then focus on the question of whether algorithms for sampling correctors can be more efficient in terms of sample complexity than learning algorithms for the analogous families of distributions. When correcting monotonicity, we show that this is indeed the case when also granted query access to the cumulative distribution function. We also obtain sampling correctors for monotonicity even without this stronger type of access, provided that the distribution be originally very close more » to monotone (namely, at a distance $O(1/\log^2 n)$). In addition to that, we consider a restricted error model that aims at capturing “missing data” corruptions. In this model, we show that distributions that are close to monotone have sampling correctors that are significantly more efficient than achievable by the learning approach. We consider the question of whether an additional source of independent random bits is required by sampling correctors to implement the correction process. We show that for correcting close-to-uniform distributions and close-to-monotone distributions, no additional source of random bits is required, as the samples from the input source itself can be used to produce this randomness. « less
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
1650733
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10078630
Journal Name:
SIAM journal on computing
Volume:
47
Issue:
4
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1373-1423
ISSN:
0097-5397
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. A Boolean {\em $k$-monotone} function defined over a finite poset domain ${\cal D}$ alternates between the values $0$ and $1$ at most $k$ times on any ascending chain in ${\cal D}$. Therefore, $k$-monotone functions are natural generalizations of the classical {\em monotone} functions, which are the {\em $1$-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 ismore »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: \begin{enumerate} \item We demonstrate a separation between testing $k$-monotonicity and testing monotonicity, on the hypercube domain $\{0,1\}^d$, for $k\geq 3$; \item We demonstrate a separation between testing and learning on $\{0,1\}^d$, for $k=\omega(\log d)$: testing $k$-monotonicity can be performed with $2^{O(\sqrt d \cdot \log d\cdot \log{1/\eps})}$ queries, while learning $k$-monotone functions requires $2^{\Omega(k\cdot \sqrt d\cdot{1/\eps})}$ queries (Blais et al. (RANDOM 2015)). \item 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). \end{enumerate} 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.« less
  2. There has been significant study on the sample complexity of testing properties of distributions over large domains. For many properties, it is known that the sample complexity can be substantially smaller than the domain size. For example, over a domain of size n, distinguishing the uniform distribution from distributions that are far from uniform in ℓ1-distance uses only O(n−−√) samples. However, the picture is very different in the presence of arbitrary noise, even when the amount of noise is quite small. In this case, one must distinguish if samples are coming from a distribution that is ϵ-close to uniform frommore »the case where the distribution is (1−ϵ)-far from uniform. The latter task requires nearly linear in n samples (Valiant, 2008; Valiant and Valiant, 2017a). In this work, we present a noise model that on one hand is more tractable for the testing problem, and on the other hand represents a rich class of noise families. In our model, the noisy distribution is a mixture of the original distribution and noise, where the latter is known to the tester either explicitly or via sample access; the form of the noise is also known \emph{a priori}. Focusing on the identity and closeness testing problems leads to the following mixture testing question: Given samples of distributions p,q1,q2, can we test if p is a mixture of q1 and q2? We consider this general question in various scenarios that differ in terms of how the tester can access the distributions, and show that indeed this problem is more tractable. Our results show that the sample complexity of our testers are exactly the same as for the classical non-mixture case.« less
  3. There has been significant study on the sample complexity of testing properties of distributions over large domains. For many properties, it is known that the sample complexity can be substantially smaller than the domain size. For example, over a domain of size n, distinguishing the uniform distribution from distributions that are far from uniform in ℓ1-distance uses only O(n−−√) samples. However, the picture is very different in the presence of arbitrary noise, even when the amount of noise is quite small. In this case, one must distinguish if samples are coming from a distribution that is ϵ-close to uniform frommore »the case where the distribution is (1−ϵ)-far from uniform. The latter task requires nearly linear in n samples (Valiant, 2008; Valiant and Valiant, 2017a). In this work, we present a noise model that on one hand is more tractable for the testing problem, and on the other hand represents a rich class of noise families. In our model, the noisy distribution is a mixture of the original distribution and noise, where the latter is known to the tester either explicitly or via sample access; the form of the noise is also known \emph{a priori}. Focusing on the identity and closeness testing problems leads to the following mixture testing question: Given samples of distributions p,q1,q2, can we test if p is a mixture of q1 and q2? We consider this general question in various scenarios that differ in terms of how the tester can access the distributions, and show that indeed this problem is more tractable. Our results show that the sample complexity of our testers are exactly the same as for the classical non-mixture case.« less
  4. In this work, we consider the sample complexity required for testing the monotonicity of distributions over partial orders. A distribution p over a poset is monotone if, for any pair of domain elements x and y such that x ⪯ y, p(x) ≤ p(y). To understand the sample complexity of this problem, we introduce a new property called bigness over a finite domain, where the distribution is T-big if the minimum probability for any domain element is at least T. We establish a lower bound of Ω(n/ log n) for testing bigness of distributions on domains of size n. Wemore »then build on these lower bounds to give Ω(n/ log n) lower bounds for testing monotonicity over a matching poset of size n and significantly improved lower bounds over the hypercube poset. We give sublinear sample complexity bounds for testing bigness and for testing monotonicity over the matching poset. We then give a number of tools for analyzing upper bounds on the sample complexity of the monotonicity testing problem. The previous lower bound for testing Monotonicity of« less
  5. In this work, we consider the sample complexity required for testing the monotonicity of distributions over partial orders. A distribution p over a poset is {\em monotone} if, for any pair of domain elements x and y such that x⪯y, p(x)≤p(y). To understand the sample complexity of this problem, we introduce a new property called \emph{bigness} over a finite domain, where the distribution is T-big if the minimum probability for any domain element is at least T. We establish a lower bound of Ω(n/logn) for testing bigness of distributions on domains of size n. We then build on these lowermore »bounds to give Ω(n/logn) lower bounds for testing monotonicity over a matching poset of size n and significantly improved lower bounds over the hypercube poset. We give sublinear sample complexity bounds for testing bigness and for testing monotonicity over the matching poset. We then give a number of tools for analyzing upper bounds on the sample complexity of the monotonicity testing problem.« less