Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to nonfederal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

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 Tbig 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. We 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

We provide an efficient algorithm for the classical problem, going back to Galton, Pearson, and Fisher, of estimating, with arbitrary accuracy the parameters of a multivariate normal distribution from truncated samples. Truncated samples from a dvariate normal N(μ,Σ) means a samples is only revealed if it falls in some subset S⊆Rd; otherwise the samples are hidden and their count in proportion to the revealed samples is also hidden. We show that the mean μ and covariance matrix Σ can be estimated with arbitrary accuracy in polynomialtime, as long as we have oracle access to S, and S has nontrivial measure under the unknown dvariate normal distribution. Additionally we show that without oracle access to S, any nontrivial estimation is impossible.

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 “onthefly” 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 closemore »

We study the question of testing structured properties (classes) of discrete distributions. Specifically, given sample access to an arbitrary distribution D over [n] and a property P, the goal is to distinguish between D ∈ P and ℓ1(D, P) > ε. We develop a general algorithm for this question, which applies to a large range of “shapeconstrained” properties, including monotone, logconcave, tmodal, piecewisepolynomial, and Poisson Binomial distributions. Moreover, for all cases considered, our algorithm has nearoptimal sample complexity with regard to the domain size and is computationally efficient. For most of these classes, we provide the first nontrivial tester in the literature. In addition, we also describe a generic method to prove lower bounds for this problem, and use it to show our upper bounds are nearly tight. Finally, we extend some of our techniques to tolerant testing, deriving nearly–tight upper and lower bounds for the corresponding questions.