Abstract:We study property testing with incomplete or noisy inputs. The models we consider allow for adversarial manipulation of the input, but differ in whether the manipulation can be done only offline, i.e., before the execution of the algorithm, or online, i.e., as the algorithm runs. The manipulations by an adversary can come in the form of erasures or corruptions. We compare the query complexity and the randomness complexity of property testing in the offline and online models. Kalemaj, Raskhodnikova, and Varma (Theory Comput `23) provide properties that can be tested with a small number of queries with offline erasures, but cannot be tested at all with online erasures. We demonstrate that the two models are incomparable in terms of query complexity: we construct properties that can be tested with a constant number of queries in the online corruption model, but require querying a significant fraction of the input in the offline erasure model. We also construct properties that exhibit a strong separation between the randomness complexity of testing in the presence of offline and online adversaries: testing these properties in the online model requires exponentially more random bits than in the offline model, even when they are tested with nearly the same number of queries in both models. Our randomness separation relies on a novel reduction from randomness-efficient testers in the adversarial online model to query-efficient testers in the standard model.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to study the different performances when conducting property testing in the case of incomplete or noisy inputs, facing offline and online adversaries. Specifically: 1. **Comparing query complexity and randomness complexity**: The paper compares the query complexity and randomness complexity of property testing under the offline and online adversary models. The author shows that these two models are incomparable in terms of query complexity, and some properties may be easily tested under one model but very difficult under the other. 2. **Different types of adversary behaviors**: The adversary can perform erasures or corruptions on the input data. The offline adversary modifies the input data before the algorithm is executed, while the online adversary dynamically modifies the input data during the algorithm's running process. 3. **Separation of specific problems**: The paper shows that there are some properties that can be tested with a constant number of queries in the online adversary model, but need to query most of the input in the offline adversary model. In addition, there are also some properties for which the number of random bits required for testing in the online adversary model is exponentially more than that required in the offline adversary model. ### Main contributions of the paper - **Separation of query complexity**: The author constructs some properties and proves that these properties can be tested with a constant number of queries in the online adversary model, but require a nearly linear number of queries in the offline adversary model. - **Separation of randomness complexity**: The author shows that for some properties, the number of random bits required for testing in the online adversary model is much more than that in the offline adversary model, indicating that the randomness complexity in the online adversary model is higher. ### Formula representation To understand these results more clearly, we can represent some key points with formulas: - **Query complexity**: - Online adversary model: $O(1)$ queries - Offline adversary model: $\tilde{\Omega}(n)$ queries - **Randomness complexity**: - Online adversary model: $\tilde{\Omega}(\sqrt{n})$ random bits - Offline adversary model: $O(\log n)$ random bits Through these formulas, we can see the significant differences in query complexity and randomness complexity between the online and offline adversary models.

Online versus Offline Adversaries in Property Testing

Active Property Testing

Online Computation with Untrusted Advice

Online Learning: Stochastic and Constrained Adversaries

Adversaries in Online Learning Revisited: with applications in Robust Optimization and Adversarial training

Adversarial Attacks on Online Learning to Rank with Stochastic Click Models

Stochastic Distance in Property Testing

Non-Stochastic Hypothesis Testing with Application to Privacy Against Hypothesis-Testing Adversary

The Full Landscape of Robust Mean Testing: Sharp Separations between Oblivious and Adaptive Contamination

Earthmover Resilience and Testing in Ordered Structures

Covert Online Decision Making: From Sequential Hypothesis Testing to Stochastic Bandits

Sample Complexity of Robust Learning against Evasion Attacks

On the Complexity of Adversarial Decision Making

Test without Trust: Optimal Locally Private Distribution Testing

Adversarial Risk and Robustness: General Definitions and Implications for the Uniform Distribution

Adversarial robustness of amortized Bayesian inference

Can Adversarial Training Be Manipulated By Non-Robust Features?

How adversarial attacks can disrupt seemingly stable accurate classifiers

Offline Policy Evaluation and Optimization under Confounding

What Do Our Choices Say About Our Preferences?

Testing versus estimation of graph properties, revisited