Active Property Testing

TL;DR

This paper extends property testing to active learning scenarios, demonstrating its effectiveness for important properties and introducing a new testing dimension that characterizes label request complexity.

Contribution

It introduces the concept of testing dimension in active and passive models, providing bounds and insights into label complexity for property testing under distributional constraints.

Findings

Testing remains effective in active learning settings for key properties.

The testing dimension characterizes label request complexity up to constant factors.

Lower bounds are established for linear separators and dictator functions.

Abstract

One of the motivations for property testing of boolean functions is the idea that testing can serve as a preprocessing step before learning. However, in most machine learning applications, it is not possible to request for labels of fictitious examples constructed by the algorithm. Instead, the dominant query paradigm in applied machine learning, called active learning, is one where the algorithm may query for labels, but only on points in a given polynomial-sized (unlabeled) sample, drawn from some underlying distribution D. In this work, we bring this well-studied model in learning to the domain of testing. We show that for a number of important properties, testing can still yield substantial benefits in this setting. This includes testing unions of intervals, testing linear separators, and testing various assumptions used in semi-supervised learning. In addition to these specific results, we also develop a general notion of the testing dimension of a given property with respect to a given distribution. We show this dimension characterizes (up to constant factors) the intrinsic number of label requests needed to test that property. We develop such notions for both the active and passive testing models. We then use these dimensions to prove a number of lower bounds, including for linear separators and the class of dictator functions. Our results show that testing can be a powerful tool in realistic models for learning, and further that active testing exhibits an interesting and rich structure. Our work in addition brings together tools from a range of areas including U-statistics, noise-sensitivity, self-correction, and spectral analysis of random matrices, and develops new tools that may be of independent interest.