We propose a new setting for testing properties of distributions while receiving samples from several distributions, but few samples per distribution. Given samples from s distributions, p_1, p_2, …, p_s, we design testers for the following problems: (1) Uniformity Testing: Testing whether all the p_i’s are uniform or εfar from being uniform in ℓ_1distance (2) Identity Testing: Testing whether all the p_i’s are equal to an explicitly given distribution q or εfar from q in ℓ_1distance, and (3) Closeness Testing: Testing whether all the p_i’s are equal to a distribution q which we have sample access to, or εfar from q in ℓ_1distance. By assuming an additional natural condition about the source distributions, we provide sample optimal testers for all of these problems.
more »
« less
Testing Properties of Multiple Distributions with Few Samples.
We propose a new setting for testing properties of distributions while receiving samples from several distributions, but few samples per distribution. Given samples from s distributions, p_1, p_2, …, p_s, we design testers for the following problems: (1) Uniformity Testing: Testing whether all the p_i’s are uniform or εfar from being uniform in ℓ_1distance (2) Identity Testing: Testing whether all the p_i’s are equal to an explicitly given distribution q or εfar from q in ℓ_1distance, and (3) Closeness Testing: Testing whether all the p_i’s are equal to a distribution q which we have sample access to, or εfar from q in ℓ_1distance. By assuming an additional natural condition about the source distributions, we provide sample optimal testers for all of these problems.
more »
« less
 Award ID(s):
 1741137
 NSFPAR ID:
 10220369
 Date Published:
 Journal Name:
 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2020
 Format(s):
 Medium: X
 Sponsoring Org:
 National Science Foundation
More Like this


Given samples from an unknown distribution p and a description of a distribution q, are p and q close or far? This question of “identity testing” has received significant attention in the case of testing whether p and q are equal or far in total variation distance. However, in recent work [VV11a, ADK15, DP17], the following questions have been been critical to solving problems at the frontiers of distribution testing: Alternative Distances: Can we test whether p and q are far in other distances, say Hellinger? Tolerance: Can we test when p and q are close, rather than equal? And if so, close in which distances? Motivated by these questions, we characterize the complexity of distribution testing under a variety of distances, including total variation, ℓ2, Hellinger, KullbackLeibler, and χ2. For each pair of distances d1 and d2, we study the complexity of testing if p and q are close in d1 versus far in d2, with a focus on identifying which problems allow strongly sublinear testers (i.e., those with complexity O(n1–γ) for some γ > 0 where n is the size of the support of the distributions p and q). We provide matching upper and lower bounds for each case. We also study these questions in the case where we only have samples from q (equivalence testing), showing qualitative differences from identity testing in terms of when tolerance can be achieved. Our algorithms fall into the classical paradigm of χ2statistics, but require crucial changes to handle the challenges introduced by each distance we consider. Finally, we survey other recent results in an attempt to serve as a reference for the complexity of various distribution testing problems.more » « less

Given samples from an unknown multivariate distribution p, is it possible to distinguish whether p is the product of its marginals versus p being far from every product distribution? Similarly, is it possible to distinguish whether p equals a given distribution q versus p and q being far from each other? These problems of testing independence and goodnessoffit have received enormous attention in statistics, information theory, and theoretical computer science, with sampleoptimal algorithms known in several interesting regimes of parameters [BFF+01, Pan08, VV17, ADK15, DK16]. Unfortunately, it has also been understood that these problems become intractable in large dimensions, necessitating exponential sample complexity. Motivated by the exponential lower bounds for general distributions as well as the ubiquity of Markov Random Fields (MRFs) in the modeling of highdimensional distributions, we initiate the study of distribution testing on structured multivariate distributions, and in particular the prototypical example of MRFs: the Ising Model. We demonstrate that, in this structured setting, we can avoid the curse of dimensionality, obtaining sample and time efficient testers for independence and goodnessoffit. One of the key technical challenges we face along the way is bounding the variance of functions of the Ising model.more » « less

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 ℓ1distance 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 ϵclose to uniform from 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 nonmixture case.more » « less

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 ℓ1distance 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 ϵclose to uniform from 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 nonmixture case.more » « less