Paper detail

Quantitative relation between noise sensitivity and influences

A Boolean function $f:\{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}$ is said to be noise sensitive if inserting a small random error in its argument makes the value of the function almost unpredictable. Benjamini, Kalai and Schramm showed that if the sum of squares of influences in $f$ is close to zero then $f$ must be noise sensitive. We show a quantitative version of this result which does not depend on $n$, and prove that it is tight for certain parameters. Our results hold also for a general product measure $μ_p$ on the discrete cube, as long as $\log 1/p \ll \log n$. We note that in [BKS], a quantitative relation between the sum of squares of the influences and the noise sensitivity was also shown, but only when the sum of squares is bounded by $n^{-c}$ for a constant $c$. Our results require a generalization of a lemma of Talagrand on the Fourier coefficients of monotone Boolean functions. In order to achieve it, we present a considerably shorter proof of Talagrand's lemma, which easily generalizes in various directions, including non-monotone functions.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.