Relative-error testing of conjunctions and decision lists

April 11, 2025 ยท The Ethereal ยท ๐Ÿ› International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming

๐Ÿ”ฎ THE ETHEREAL: The Ethereal
Pure theory โ€” exists on a plane beyond code

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Xi Chen, William Pires, Toniann Pitassi, Rocco A. Servedio arXiv ID 2504.08987 Category cs.CC: Computational Complexity Cross-listed cs.DM, cs.DS Citations 2 Venue International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming Last Checked 6 months ago
Abstract
We study the relative-error property testing model for Boolean functions that was recently introduced in the work of Chen et al. (SODA 2025). In relative-error testing, the testing algorithm gets uniform random satisfying assignments as well as black-box queries to $f$, and it must accept $f$ with high probability whenever $f$ has the property that is being tested and reject any $f$ that is relative-error far from having the property. Here the relative-error distance from $f$ to a function $g$ is measured with respect to $|f^{-1}(1)|$ rather than with respect to the entire domain size $2^n$ as in the Hamming distance measure that is used in the standard model; thus, unlike the standard model, relative-error testing allows us to study the testability of sparse Boolean functions that have few satisfying assignments. It was shown in Chen et al. (SODA 2025) that relative-error testing is at least as difficult as standard-model property testing, but for many natural and important Boolean function classes the precise relationship between the two notions is unknown. In this paper we consider the well-studied and fundamental properties of being a conjunction and being a decision list. In the relative-error setting, we give an efficient one-sided error tester for conjunctions with running time and query complexity $O(1/ฮต)$. Secondly, we give a two-sided relative-error $\tilde{O}$$(1/ฮต)$ tester for decision lists, matching the query complexity of the state-of-the-art algorithm in the standard model Bshouty (RANDOM 2020) and Diakonikolas et al. (FOCS 2007).
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Computational Complexity