Which Distribution Distances are Sublinearly Testable?

By Constantinos Daskalakis, Gautam Kamath, John Wright. 2017

50 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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, 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, $\ell_2$, Hellinger, Kullback-Leibler, and $\chi^2$. For each pair of distances $d_1$ and $d_2$, we study the complexity of testing if $p$ and $q$ are close in $d_1$ versus far in $d_2$, with a focus on identifying which problems allow strongly sublinear testers (i.e., those with complexity $O(n^{1 - \gamma})$ for some $\gamma > 0$ 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 $\chi^2$-statistics, 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.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computational Theory and Mathematics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Xiyang Liu
  2. Audra McMillan
  3. Anna C. Gilbert
  4. Sewoong Oh
  5. Peter Kairouz
  6. Pramod Viswanath
  7. Aurélien Bellet

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

  1. Audra McMillan
  2. Anna C. Gilbert
  3. Xiyang Liu
  4. Sewoong Oh

Citations in the corpus