5

I recently came across this paper by Friedgut that shows low sensitivity boolean functions are close to juntas. This was an unintuitive result to me, as I thought I could easily imagine a function on the boolean hypercube that is a linear combination of many low-degree monomials, and therefore has low sensitivity, but still depends on every coordinate. take for example a linear combination of all $O(n^2)$ 2-parities. Eventually I realized that this can be resolved by realizing that such a function can't have it's image in $\{-1,1\}$, i.e. it can't be boolean. Is there some general result that restricts the fourier spectrum of any low-sensitivity function on the hypercube when we further assume it is boolean?

This paper helps give some relevant theory, though it doesn't explain why the function I describe above cant be boolean. One of the formal results it gives is that any boolean function must have a fourier transform whose convolution with itself is the delta function. But I'm not sure what this means practically, or whether it implies any kind of sparsity result for low-sensitivity functions.

If anyone has intuition as to how booleanity restricts the fourier spectrum of a function on the hypercube, or references that might lend me some, it would be much appreciated!

Best,

Paul

EDIT: After thinking some more about the intuition given in the second paper I linked, I think I may be able to offer an explanation for why an linear combination (e.g. of constant weight) of all 2-parities can't be boolean. That paper suggests that the fourier transform $\widehat{f(s)}$ should be orthogonal to every shifted version of itself. In this example, $\widehat{f(s)}$ has some constant value at all vectors with hamming weight 2, and 0 elsewhere. A shifted version of this, $\widehat{f(s+s')}$, is just a permutation of the coordinates of the frequency vectors (I'm thinking of the sets in the fourier domain as being represented with binary inclusion-indicator vectors). I can think of many permutations of the indices of the set of all hamming-weight 2 frequency vectors that would yield a shifted fourier transform that is non-orthogonal to the original: Take for example the permutation that adds $s' = (1,1,1,1,...,0)$ to each frequency vector. So for example $$\widehat{f}((1,1,0,...,0)+(1,1,1,1,...,0)) = \widehat{f}(0,0,1,1,...,0)=C,$$ Thus, there exists $s,s'\neq \textbf{0}$ such that $\widehat{f}(s)\widehat{f}(s+s')=C^2$, and since there are no negative coefficients to compensate for this, the shifted transform is non-orthogonal.

Similarly, I can see why a non-trivial (i.e. non-dictator) function is boolean according to this definition. The Majority function in 3 variables has the fourier series $\frac{x_1}{2}+\frac{x_2}{2}+\frac{x_3}{2}-\frac{x_1x_2x_3}{2}$. The only way to shift the fourier series to have a any non-zero entries would be to e.g. add the shift vector $(1,1,0)$

$$\widehat{f}((1,0,0)+(1,1,0))=\widehat{f}(0,1,0)=\frac{1}{2}$$ $$\widehat{f}((0,1,0)+(1,1,0))=\widehat{f}(1,0,0)=\frac{1}{2}$$ $$\widehat{f}((0,0,1)+(1,1,0))=\widehat{f}(1,1,1)=-\frac{1}{2}$$ $$\widehat{f}((1,1,1)+(1,1,0))=\widehat{f}(0,0,1)=\frac{1}{2}$$

It is easy to see from this that the convolution at $(1,1,0)$

$$\widehat{f}\ast \widehat{f}(1,1,0)=\sum_{x\in \{0,1\}^3} \widehat{f}(x)\widehat{f}(x+(1,1,0))=0$$

I can see how this is true for all shifts. So the shifted fourier spectrum is still orthogonal for all non-trivial shifts, i.e. the convolution of the fourier spectrum with itself is the delta function, and and the function should be boolean according to the result from Tamuz that I shared above. So that checks out.

However, I'm still having trouble understanding the intuition about what kinds of spectra will have this property. It seems like a very simple definition, but the examples I've been able to work through so far aren't revealing a simple rule.

Paul
  • 557
  • 1
    Your first link doesn't work. Also, please use MathJax to type the math in your questions. Consider that many users of this site won't even read your questions if they are not properly formatted, let alone help you. – jjagmath Mar 24 '24 at 20:54
  • I just made those edits, thanks – Paul Mar 24 '24 at 21:10
  • FYI - another thing that will limit your audience is when your question depends heavily on links that are behind paywalls. – Paul Sinclair Mar 25 '24 at 21:34
  • sorry, I couldn't find a free version of the first link. – Paul Mar 26 '24 at 00:59
  • But I think my question doesn't depend on the content of that paper, other than its main conclusion. I know low-sensitvity boolean functions are close to juntas, but I'm pointing out that booleanity seems to be a very strong restriction, and asking for some intuition about booleanity, not about the content of that paper. – Paul Mar 26 '24 at 01:25

0 Answers0