1 / 33

Tolerant Locally Testable Codes

Tolerant Locally Testable Codes. Atri Rudra. Qualifying Evaluation Project Presentation Advisor: Venkatesan Guruswami. Fake Motivation. Elvis Presley is alive! Verify this Check DNA Too much work “Spot Check” Accept Elvis Reject Atri Bruce Campbell ?. Outline of the talk.

miller
Download Presentation

Tolerant Locally Testable Codes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tolerant Locally Testable Codes Atri Rudra Qualifying Evaluation Project Presentation Advisor:Venkatesan Guruswami

  2. Fake Motivation • Elvis Presley is alive! • Verify this • Check DNA • Too much work • “Spot Check” • Accept Elvis • Reject Atri • Bruce Campbell ?

  3. Outline of the talk • Real Motivation • Testing Codes • Previous work • Our Contributions • High Level ideas • Some Details • Open problems

  4. Tester Hopeless x C(x) Error Correcting Codes C(x) x Encoder y Decoder x Give up

  5. Property testing x • Verify a property • Oracle access to input • Does x have the property ? • Make few queries • Probabilistic tester • Accepts correct inputs • Rejects very bad inputs (whp) T 0/1

  6. Codes • Mapping C : k!n • Distance d = min u,v2k(C(u),C(v)) • (¢,¢) is Hamming Distance • Rate k/n • [n,k,d] d/2 d/2 d

  7. Testing Codes x • Property x 2? C • Make few queries • Probabilistic Tester • How good is the tester ? • Accept x 2 C w.p. 1 • Reject x far from C w.p. 2/3 • Hamming Distance • Local tester • Constant number of queries • Sub-linear also interesting T 0 w.p. 2/3 1

  8. Locally Testable Codes • Who Cares ? • Heart of PCPs • Alternate Characterization of NP • X 2? L • Proof (x) • Verifier checks (x) • Makes q queries • NP = PCP[ O(log n), O(1)] • [ALMSS92]…..

  9. Another motivation C(x) x y x Close Far Give up

  10. Current Local Testers • Reject if y is far • Accept if y is close • By defn accepts only y2 C • Against rationale of codes y Close Far

  11. y Close Far Tolerant Local Testers • Dist(y,C) <= c1d/n • Accept w.p >= 2/3 • Tolerance • Dist(y,C) > c2d/n • Reject w.p. >= 2/3 • Soundness • q(n) queries • (c1,c2,q)- testable • Prev work (0,O(1),O(1))-testable • Perfect completeness

  12. d/2 d/2 d The Holy Grail • Constant rate, linear distance • Constant Query Complexity • Not known even for LTCs • Unique decoding radius • c1=1/2, c2¼ 1/2?

  13. Contributions • LTCs ! tolerant LTCs • No generic “complier” • Constant rate • Sub-linear query complexity • [BS04] • Constant # queries • Slightly Sub-constant rate • [BGHSV04] • Constant c1, c2

  14. (Constant # queries, Constant Rate) Near uniform queries Partitioned queries Goal: Design codes and tolerant testers More on Contributions Sub-constant Rate Sub-linear # queries

  15. Where are we now ? • Real Motivation • Testing Codes • Previous work • Our Contributions • High Level ideas • Some Details • Open problems

  16. x T 1 LTC ! tolerant LTC • Perfect Completeness • Uniform query pattern • c1= O(1/q) by union bound • Almost uniform is • q is not constant ?

  17. Local Tester Revisited x • Decision procedure is strict • Accept perturbations • There is a problem • Local View • Locally approx correct ) Global approx correct • Robustness • [BS04] T 1 0

  18. What is next ? • Constant rate, linear distance • Sub-linear query complexity • Product of Codes • [BS04]

  19. 2 C n C3 n Product of Codes • C [n,k,d] • C2 • Any row 2 C • Any Column 2 C • [n2,k2,d2] • Tester ?

  20. n n Tester for C2 row • pick row or clm • pick j2[n] • Rj2 C ? • Not known to be robust • Big open question • True for special cases • C is Reed-Solomon • C is C’2 C3?

  21. 2 C2 2? C2 2 C2 Larger product of Codes (C3) • Similar definition (3D instead of 2D) • Same test • 2? C2 test • Check all n2 pts • N2/3 queries • N=n3 • Robust! • [BS04]

  22. Formal definition of Robustness • v2n • r random coin • T(v,r)=miny:T(y_r)=1 dist(v,y) • T(v)=Er[T(v,r)] • T is e-robust • 8v2n, dist(v,C)· e¢T(v)

  23. ¼? C2 C3 is tolerant LTC • Tolerant test • Restriction is close to C2? • Constant rate • N2/3 queries • Reduce the # queries • Ct (t-Dimension) • N2/t queries

  24. h dist(vh,C2)·?n2 Tolerance of C3 tester • dist(v,C)· n3/3 • f2 C3 closest to v • ¸2n/3 choices of h • Dist(vh,fh)· n2 • Averaging argument • If not, for ¸ n/3 h, dist(vh,fh) >  n2 • )dist(v,f)> n3/3 • Similar arguments for other planes • v accepted w.p. ¸ 2/3

  25. So what do we have now ? • Constant rate, linear distance • Sublinear query complexity • n # queries • =2/t • C has no local tester but Ct has one

  26. What is next ? • Slightly sub-constant rate, linear distance • n=k¢ exp(logk) for any >0 • Constant query complexity • Based on PCPs • [BGHSV04]

  27. 9 T 1 PCP of Proximity • Variant of PCP introduced in [BGHSV04] • CKT-VAL(T)={x:T(x)=1} • Verifier VT such that • x2 CKT-VAL(T), 9, VT(x,)=1 wp 1 • x far from CKT-VAL(T), 8, VT(x,)=1 wp <1/2 • #queries in hx,i • ||=s¢ exp(logs) • s=|T| • Constant # queries x  8 VT 0

  28. 0 Local Tester 1.0 • Start with good code C0 • Constant rate and linear distance • Linear size encoding circuit • Use PCPP as an aid • C1(x)= hC0(x),(x)i • There is a problem • |x|/|(x)|=o(1) • Distance of C1 is bad (x) x x (x) C0 1

  29. Local Tester 1.1 • Increase the “code” part • C2(x)=h (C0(x))t,(x) i • Choose t such that |(x)|/(t¢|x|)=o(1) • Constant query complexity • Slightly sub-constant rate, linear distance • Not tolerant • Just corrupt the proof part • Corrupted word still close to C2 (x) (C0(x))t

  30. Tolerant Local Tester 1.2 • Keep the code and proof parts comparable • C3(x)=h(C0(x))k,((x))li • k¢|C0(x)|=(l¢|(x)|) • Need near uniform queries • Constant query complexity • Slightly sub-constant rate, Linear distance • Used in relaxed LDC in [BGHSV04]

  31. To summarize • Defined tolerant LTCs • Explicit constructions • Constant # queries, slightly sub-constant rate • Sub-linear # queries, constant rate • Both constructions start from some C0 • C0 does not have a (tolerant) local tester

  32. n n Open Questions • Is “natural” tester for C2 robust ? • e-robust for e=O(1) • No lower bounds on n for LTCs • Does tolerance make lower bounds easier ? row C3?

  33. Questions ?

More Related