Document

# On Higher-Order Fourier Analysis over Non-Prime Fields

## File

LIPIcs.APPROX-RANDOM.2016.23.pdf
• Filesize: 0.63 MB
• 29 pages

## Cite As

Arnab Bhattacharyya, Abhishek Bhowmick, and Chetan Gupta. On Higher-Order Fourier Analysis over Non-Prime Fields. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX/RANDOM 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 60, pp. 23:1-23:29, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.APPROX-RANDOM.2016.23

## Abstract

The celebrated Weil bound for character sums says that for any low-degree polynomial P and any additive character chi, either chi(P) is a constant function or it is distributed close to uniform. The goal of higher-order Fourier analysis is to understand the connection between the algebraic and analytic properties of polynomials (and functions, generally) at a more detailed level. For instance, what is the tradeoff between the equidistribution of chi(P) and its "structure"? Previously, most of the work in this area was over fields of prime order. We extend the tools of higher-order Fourier analysis to analyze functions over general finite fields. Let K be a field extension of a prime finite field F_p. Our technical results are: 1. If P: K^n -> K is a polynomial of degree <= d, and E[chi(P(x))] > |K|^{-s} for some s > 0 and non-trivial additive character chi, then P is a function of O_{d, s}(1) many non-classical polynomials of weight degree < d. The definition of non-classical polynomials over non-prime fields is one of the contributions of this work. 2. Suppose K and F are of bounded order, and let H be an affine subspace of K^n. Then, if P: K^n -> K is a polynomial of degree d that is sufficiently regular, then (P(x): x in H) is distributed almost as uniformly as possible subject to constraints imposed by the degree of P. Such a theorem was previously known for H an affine subspace over a prime field. The tools of higher-order Fourier analysis have found use in different areas of computer science, including list decoding, algorithmic decomposition and testing. Using our new results, we revisit some of these areas. (i) For any fixed finite field K, we show that the list decoding radius of the generalized Reed Muller code over K equals the minimum distance of the code. (ii) For any fixed finite field K, we give a polynomial time algorithm to decide whether a given polynomial P: K^n -> K can be decomposed as a particular composition of lesser degree polynomials. (iii) For any fixed finite field K, we prove that all locally characterized affine-invariant properties of functions f: K^n -> K are testable with one-sided error.
##### Keywords
• finite fields
• higher order fourier analysis
• coding theory
• property testing

## Metrics

• Access Statistics
• Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
0

## References

1. Noga Alon, Tali Kaufman, Michael Krivelevich, Simon Litsyn, and Dana Ron. Testing Reed-Muller codes. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 51(11):4032-4039, 2005. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2005.856958.
2. S. Arora and M. Sudan. Improved low-degree testing and its applications. Combinatorica, 23(3):365-426, 2003.
3. László Babai, Lance Fortnow, Leonid A. Levin, and Mario Szegedy. Checking computations in polylogarithmic time. In Proc. 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 21-32, New York, 1991. ACM Press.
4. László Babai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computational Complexity, 1(1):3-40, 1991.
5. Eli Ben-Sasson, Ghid Maatouk, Amir Shpilka, and Madhu Sudan. Symmetric LDPC codes are not necessarily locally testable. In Proc. 26th Annual Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC), pages 55-65. IEEE, 2011.
6. Arnab Bhattacharyya. Polynomial decompositions in polynomial time. In Proc. 22nd Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 125-136, 2014.
7. Arnab Bhattacharyya and Abhishek Bhowmick. Using higher-order fourier analysis over general fields. CoRR, abs/1505.00619, 2015. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00619.
8. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Victor Chen, Madhu Sudan, and Ning Xie. Testing linear-invariant non-linear properties. Theory Comput., 7(1):75-99, 2011.
9. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Eldar Fischer, Hamed Hatami, Pooya Hatami, and Shachar Lovett. Every locally characterized affine-invariant property is testable. In Proc. 45th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 429-436, 2013.
10. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Eldar Fischer, and Shachar Lovett. Testing low complexity affine-invariant properties. In Proc. 24th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1337-1355, 2013.
11. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Elena Grigorescu, and Asaf Shapira. A unified framework for testing linear-invariant properties. In Proc. 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 478-487, 2010.
12. Arnab Bhattacharyya, Pooya Hatami, and Madhur Tulsiani. Algorithmic regularity for polynomials and applications. In Proc. 26th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1870-1889, 2015.
13. Abhishek Bhowmick and Shachar Lovett. Bias vs structure of polynomials in large fields, and applications in effective algebraic geometry and coding theory. CoRR, abs/1506.02047, 2015. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02047.
14. Abhishek Bhowmick and Shachar Lovett. List decoding Reed-Muller codes over small fields. In Proc. 47th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 277-285, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.
15. Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems. J. Comp. Sys. Sci., 47:549-595, 1993. Earlier version in STOC'90.
16. A. Bogdanov and E. Viola. Pseudorandom bits for polynomials. In Proc. 48^th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07), 2007.
17. Pierre Deligne. Application de la formule des traces aux sommes trigonometriques. In SGA 4 \frac12 Springer Lecture Notes in Matematics, volume 569. Springer, 1978.
18. P. Elias. List decoding for noisy channels. Technical Report 335, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, 1957.
19. Uriel Feige, Shafi Goldwasser, László Lovász, Shmuel Safra, and Mario Szegedy. Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques. J. ACM, 43(2):268-292, 1996.
20. O. Goldreich and L. Levin. A hard-core predicate for all one-way functions. In Proc. 21^st ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 25-32, 1989.
21. O. Goldreich, R. Rubinfeld, and M. Sudan. Learning polynomials with queries: The highly noisy case. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 13(4):535-570, 2000.
22. Oded Goldreich, Shafi Goldwasser, and Dana Ron. Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation. J. ACM, 45:653-750, 1998.
23. Oded Goldreich and Tali Kaufman. Proximity oblivious testing and the role of invariances. In Studies in Complexity and Cryptography, pages 173-190. Springer, 2011.
24. Oded Goldreich and Dana Ron. On proximity oblivious testing. SIAM J. Comput., 40(2):534-566, 2011.
25. P. Gopalan. A Fourier-analytic approach to Reed-Muller decoding. In Proc. 51^st IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'10), pages 685-694, 2010.
26. P. Gopalan, A. Klivans, and D. Zuckerman. List decoding Reed-Muller codes over small fields. In Proc. 40^th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC'08), pages 265-274, 2008.
27. Parikshit Gopalan, Ryan O'Donnell, Rocco A. Servedio, Amir Shpilka, and Karl Wimmer. Testing Fourier dimensionality and sparsity. In Proc. 36th Annual International Conference on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 500-512, 2009.
28. William T. Gowers. A new proof of Szeméredi’s theorem for arithmetic progressions of length four. Geom. Funct. Anal., 8(3):529-551, 1998.
29. William T. Gowers. A new proof of Szeméredi’s theorem. Geom. Funct. Anal., 11(3):465-588, 2001.
30. Ben Green and Terence Tao. The distribution of polynomials over finite fields, with applications to the Gowers norms. Contrib. Discrete Math., 4(2), 2009.
31. Elena Grigorescu, Tali Kaufman, and Madhu Sudan. Succinct representation of codes with applications to testing. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 26(4):1618-1634, 2012.
32. Alan Guo, Swastik Kopparty, and Madhu Sudan. New affine-invariant codes from lifting. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 529-540. ACM, 2013.
33. V. Guruswami. List Decoding of Error-Correcting Codes, volume 3282 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2004.
34. V. Guruswami. Algorithmic Results in List Decoding, volume 2 of Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science. Now Publishers, 2006.
35. Hamed Hatami and Shachar Lovett. Estimating the distance from testable affine-invariant properties. In Proc. 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 237-242. IEEE, 2013.
36. Tali Kaufman and Simon Litsyn. Almost orthogonal linear codes are locally testable. In Proc. 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 317-326. IEEE, 2005.
37. Tali Kaufman and Shachar Lovett. Worst case to average case reductions for polynomials. In Proc. 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 166-175, 2008.
38. Tali Kaufman and Dana Ron. Testing polynomials over general fields. SIAM J. on Comput., 36(3):779-802, 2006.
39. Tali Kaufman and Madhu Sudan. Algebraic property testing: the role of invariance. In Proc. 40th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 403-412, 2008.
40. Shachar Lovett, Roy Meshulam, and Alex Samorodnitsky. Inverse conjecture for the Gowers norm is false. In Proc. 40th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 547-556, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
41. R. Pellikaan and X. Wu. List decoding of q-ary Reed-Muller codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 50(4):679-682, 2004.
42. Ronitt Rubinfeld and Madhu Sudan. Robust characterizations of polynomials with applications to program testing. SIAM J. on Comput., 25:252-271, 1996.
43. M. Sudan. Decoding of Reed-Solomon codes beyond the error-correction bound. Journal of Complexity, 13(1):180-193, 1997. URL: https://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/sudan97decoding.html.
44. M. Sudan. List decoding: Algorithms and applications. SIGACT News, 31(1):16-27, 2000.
45. M. Sudan, L. Trevisan, and S. P. Vadhan. Pseudorandom generators without the XOR lemma. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 62(2):236-266, 2001.
46. Terence Tao. Higher Order Fourier Analysis, volume 142 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 2012.
47. Terence Tao and Tamar Ziegler. The inverse conjecture for the Gowers norm over finite fields via the correspondence principle. Analysis &PDE, 3(1):1-20, 2010.
48. Terence Tao and Tamar Ziegler. The inverse conjecture for the Gowers norm over finite fields in low characteristic. Ann. Comb., 16(1):121-188, 2012.
49. Andre Weil. Sur les courbes algébriques et les varietes qui s'en deduisent. Actualites Sci. et Ind., 1041, 1948.
50. J. Wozencraft. List decoding. Technical Report 48:90-95, Quarterly Progress Report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, 1958.
51. Yuichi Yoshida. A characterization of locally testable affine-invariant properties via decomposition theorems. In Proc. 46th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 154-163, 2014.
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing