skip to main content
research-article

Finding Correlations in Subquadratic Time, with Applications to Learning Parities and the Closest Pair Problem

Published:06 May 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Given a set of n d-dimensional Boolean vectors with the promise that the vectors are chosen uniformly at random with the exception of two vectors that have Pearson correlation coefficient ρ (Hamming distance d· 1-ρ/ 2), how quickly can one find the two correlated vectors? We present an algorithm which, for any constant ϵ>0, and constant ρ>0, runs in expected time O(n5-ω / 4-ω+ϵ +nd) < O(n1.62 +nd), where ω < 2.4 is the exponent of matrix multiplication. This is the first subquadratic--time algorithm for this problem for which ρ does not appear in the exponent of n, and improves upon O(n2-O(ρ)), given by Paturi et al. [1989], the Locality Sensitive Hashing approach of Motwani [1998] and the Bucketing Codes approach of Dubiner [2008].

Applications and extensions of this basic algorithm yield significantly improved algorithms for several other problems.

Approximate Closest Pair. For any sufficiently small constant ϵ>0, given n d-dimensional vectors, there exists an algorithm that returns a pair of vectors whose Euclidean (or Hamming) distance differs from that of the closest pair by a factor of at most 1+ϵ, and runs in time O(n2-Θ(√ϵ)). The best previous algorithms (including Locality Sensitive Hashing) have runtime O(n2-O(ϵ)).

Learning Sparse Parities with Noise. Given samples from an instance of the learning parities with noise problem where each example has length n, the true parity set has size at most k « n, and the noise rate is η, there exists an algorithm that identifies the set of k indices in time nω+ϵ/3 k poly(1/1-2η) < n0.8k poly(1/1-2 η). This is the first algorithm with no dependence on η in the exponent of n, aside from the trivial O((nk)) ≈ O(nk) brute-force algorithm, and for large noise rates (η > 0.4), improves upon the results of Grigorescu et al. [2011] that give a runtime of n(1+(2 η)2 + o(1))k/2 poly(1/1-2η).

Learning k-Juntas with Noise. Given uniformly random length n Boolean vectors, together with a label, which is some function of just k « n of the bits, perturbed by noise rate η, return the set of relevant indices. Leveraging the reduction of Feldman et al. [2009], our result for learning k-parities implies an algorithm for this problem with runtime nω+ϵ/3 k poly(1/1-2η) < n0.8k poly(1/1-2 η), which is the first runtime for this problem of the form nck with an absolute constant c < 1.

Learning k-Juntas without Noise. Given uniformly random length n Boolean vectors, together with a label, which is some function of k « n of the bits, return the set of relevant indices. Using a modification of the algorithm of Mossel et al. [2004], and employing our algorithm for learning sparse parities with noise via the reduction of Feldman et al. [2009], we obtain an algorithm for this problem with runtime nω+ ϵ/4 k poly(n) < n0.6k poly(n), which improves on the previous best of nω+1/ωkn0.7k poly(n) of Mossel et al. [2004].

References

  1. M. Ajtai, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. 2001. A sieve algorithm for the shortest lattice vector problem. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 601--610. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. N. Alon and A. Naor. 2004. Approximating the cut-norm via GrothendieckÕs inequality. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 72--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Andoni and P. Indyk. 2006. Near-optimal hashing algorithms for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 459--468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Andoni and P. Indyk. 2008. Near--optimal hashing algorithms for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensions. Commun. ACM 51, 1, 117--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Arora and R. Ge. 2011. New algorithms for learning in presence of errors. In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP). 403--415. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. L. Bentley. 1975. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching. Commun. ACM 18, 9, 509--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Blum, M. Furst, J. Jackson, M. Kearns, Y. Mansour, and S. Rudich. 1994. Weakly learning DNF and characterizing statistical query learning using Fourier analysis. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 253--262. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Blum, A. Kalai, and H. Wasserman. 2003. Noise-tolerant learning, the parity problem, and the statistical query model. J. ACM 50, 4, 507--519. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Z. Brakerski and V. Vaikuntanathan. 2011. Efficient fully homomorphic encryption from (standard) LWE. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Charikar. 2002. Similarity estimation techniques from rounding algorithms. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. Clarkson. 1988. A randomized algorithm for closest--point queries. SIAM J. Comput. 17, 4, 830--847. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Coppersmith. 1997. Rectangular matrix multiplication revisited. J. Complex. 13, 1, 42--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Datar, N. Immorlica, P. Indyk, and V. Mirrokni. 2004. Locality--sensitive hashing scheme based on p-stable distributions. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG). 253--262. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Dubiner. 2008. Bucketing coding and information theory for the statistical high dimensional nearest neighbor problem. CoRR abs/0810.4182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. V. Feldman, P. Gopalan, S. Khot, and A. Ponnuswami. 2009. On agnostic learning of parities, monomials and halfspaces. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 2, 606--645. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Grigorescu, L. Reyzin, and S. Vempala. 2011. On noise-tolerant learning of sparse parities and related problems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. J. Hopper and M. Blum. 2001. Secure human identification protocols. In Proceedings of the ASIACRYPT. 52--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Impagliazzo and D. Zuckerman. 1989. How to recycle random bits. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 248--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. Indyk and R. Motwani. 1998. Approximate nearest neighbors: towards removing the curse of dimensionality. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Kearns. 1998. Efficient noise-tolerant learning from statistical queries. J. ACM 45, 6, 983--1006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. Kushilevitz, R. Ostrovsky, and Y. Rabani. 2000. Efficient search for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensional spaces. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 2, 457--474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. V. Lyubashevsky. 2005. The parity problem in the presence of noise, decoding random linear codes, and the subset sum problem. In Proceedings of the RANDOM. 378--389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Marchini, P. Donnelly, and L. R. Cardon. 2005. Genome-wide strategies for detecting multiple loci that influence complex diseases. Nat. Genet. 37, 4, 413--417.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. S. Meiser. 1993. Point location in arrangements of hyperplanes. Inf. Computat. 106, 2, 286--303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. E. Mossel, R. O'Donnell, and R. Servedio. 2004. Learning functions of k relevant variables. J. Comput. System Sci. 69, 3, 421--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Motwani, A. Naor, and R. Panigrahy. 2006. Lower bounds on locality sensitive hashing. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG). 154--157. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. O'Donnell, Y. Wu, and Y. Zhou. 2011. Optimal lower bounds for locality sensitive hashing (except when q is tiny). In Proceedings of the Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS). 275--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. Pagh. 2012. Compressed matrix multiplication. In Proceedings of the Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Panigrahy. 2006. Entropy-based nearest neighbor search in high dimensions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ramamohan Paturi, Sanguthevar Rajasekaran, and John H. Reif. 1989. The light bulb problem. In Proceedings of the Conference on Learning Theory (COLT). 261--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. C. Peikert. 2009. Public--key cryptosystems from the worst-case shortest vector problem. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 333--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. O. Regev. 2009. On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography. J. ACM 56, 6, 1--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. O. Regev. 2010. The learning with errors problem. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC) (Invited Survey). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. T. J. Rivlin. 1974. The Chebyshev Polynomials. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. H. Samet. 2006. Foundations of Multidimensional and Metric Data Structures. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. I. J. Schoenberg. 1942. Positive definite functions on spheres. Duke Math. J. 9, 1, 96--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. G. Szegö. 1975. Orthogonal Polynomials, 4th Ed. American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications, 23. Providence, RI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. G. Valiant. 2012. Finding correlations in subquadratic time, with applications to learning parities and juntas. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. L. Valiant. 1988. Functionality in neural nets. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Computational Learning Theory. 28--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. K. A. Verbeurgt. 1990. Learning DNF under the uniform distribution in quasipolynomial time. In Proceedings of the Conference on Learning Theory (COLT). 314--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. X. Wan, C. Yang, H. Xue, N. Tang, and W. Yu. 2010. Detecting two-locus associations allowing for interactions in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 26, 20, 2517--2525. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. R. Weber, H. J. Schek, and S. Blott. 1998. A quantitative analysis and performance study for similarity--search methods in high--dimensional spaces. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. V. Vassilevska Williams. 2012. Multiplying matrices faster than Coppersmith--Winograd. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Finding Correlations in Subquadratic Time, with Applications to Learning Parities and the Closest Pair Problem

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Journal of the ACM
      Journal of the ACM  Volume 62, Issue 2
      May 2015
      304 pages
      ISSN:0004-5411
      EISSN:1557-735X
      DOI:10.1145/2772377
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 May 2015
      • Accepted: 1 January 2015
      • Revised: 1 August 2014
      • Received: 1 August 2013
      Published in jacm Volume 62, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader