Testing and Weight Distributions of Dual Codes

We study the testing problem, that is, the problem of determining (maybe probabilistically) if a function to which we have oracle access satisses a given property. We propose a framework in which to formulate and carry out the analyzes of several known tests. This framework establishes a connection between testing and the theory of weight distributions of dual codes. We illustrate this connection by giving a coding theoretic interpretation of several tests that fall under the label of low-degree tests. We also show how the coding theoretic connection we establish naturally suggests a new way of testing for linearity over nite elds. There are two important parameters associated to every test. The rst one is the test's probability of rejecting the claim that the function to which it has oracle access satisses a given property. The second one is the distance from the oracle function to any function that satisses the property of interest. The goal when analyzing tests is to explain the relationship between these two parameters. There are several good reasons why good analyzes are worth striving for. For example, improved analyzes of a family of tests referred to as low-degree tests, typically translate into improved construction of probabilistically checkable proofs and better hardness of approximation results. We derive from the MacWilliams Theorems a general result, the Duality Testing Lemma, and use it to analyze the simpler tests that fall into our framework. The analyzes we present elicit the fact that a test's probability of rejecting a function depends on how far away the function is from every function that satisses the property of interest. Other standard ways of addressing the testing problem do not capture this intuition. We discuss the apparent beneets and limitations of our approach to the testing problem and contrast it to the ones found in the literature. low-degree testing, probabilistically checkable proofs.

[1]  Dana Ron,et al.  Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation , 1998, JACM.

[2]  Ronitt Rubinfeld,et al.  Self-testing/correcting for polynomials and for approximate functions , 1991, STOC '91.

[3]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols , 2005, computational complexity.

[4]  Shirley Dex,et al.  JR 旅客販売総合システム(マルス)における運用及び管理について , 1991 .

[5]  Mihir Bellare,et al.  Improved non-approximability results , 1994, STOC '94.

[6]  M. Sudan,et al.  Robust Characterizations of Polynomials and Their Applications to Program Testing , 1993 .

[7]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Proof verification and the intractability of approximation problems , 1992, FOCS 1992.

[8]  Madhu Sudan,et al.  Some improvements to total degree tests , 1995, Proceedings Third Israel Symposium on the Theory of Computing and Systems.

[9]  Manuel Blum,et al.  Designing programs that check their work , 1989, STOC '89.

[10]  Ronitt Rubinfeld,et al.  Robust Characterizations of Polynomials with Applications to Program Testing , 1996, SIAM J. Comput..

[11]  O. Antoine,et al.  Theory of Error-correcting Codes , 2022 .

[12]  M. Bellare,et al.  Efficient probabilistic checkable proofs and applications to approximation , 1994, STOC '94.

[13]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP , 1998, JACM.

[14]  Madhu Sudan,et al.  Improved Low-Degree Testing and its Applications , 1997, STOC '97.

[15]  Ronitt Rubinfeld On the Robustness of Functional Equations , 1999, SIAM J. Comput..

[16]  Manuel Blum,et al.  Program result-checking: a theory of testing meets a test of theory , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[17]  Leonid A. Levin,et al.  Checking computations in polylogarithmic time , 1991, STOC '91.

[18]  Dana Ron,et al.  Property Testing in Bounded Degree Graphs , 2002, STOC '97.

[19]  Ran Raz A Sub-constant Error-probability Pcp Characterization of Np Part I: the Main Proof , 1996 .

[20]  Daniel A. Spielman,et al.  Nearly-linear size holographic proofs , 1994, STOC '94.

[21]  GoldreichOded,et al.  Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation , 1998 .

[22]  Manuel Blum,et al.  Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems , 1990, STOC '90.

[23]  M. Sudan On the role of algebra in the efficient verification of proofs , 1994 .

[24]  Marcos A. Kiwi,et al.  Probabilistically checkable proofs and the testing of hadamard-like codes , 1996 .

[25]  Alexander Shen,et al.  Low-degree tests , 1994, SODA '94.

[26]  László Lovász,et al.  Approximating clique is almost NP-complete , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[27]  R. Rubinfeld A mathematical theory of self-checking, self-testing and self-correcting programs , 1991 .