Paper detail

Streaming Lower Bounds and Asymmetric Set-Disjointness

Frequency estimation in data streams is one of the classical problems in streaming algorithms. Following much research, there are now almost matching upper and lower bounds for the trade-off needed between the number of samples and the space complexity of the algorithm, when the data streams are adversarial. However, in the case where the data stream is given in a random order, or is stochastic, only weaker lower bounds exist. In this work we close this gap, up to logarithmic factors. In order to do so we consider the needle problem, which is a natural hard problem for frequency estimation studied in (Andoni et al. 2008, Crouch et al. 2016). Here, the goal is to distinguish between two distributions over data streams with $t$ samples. The first is uniform over a large enough domain. The second is a planted model; a secret ''needle'' is uniformly chosen, and then each element in the stream equals the needle with probability $p$, and otherwise is uniformly chosen from the domain. It is simple to design streaming algorithms that distinguish the distributions using space $s \approx 1/(p^2 t)$. It was unclear if this is tight, as the existing lower bounds are weaker. We close this gap and show that the trade-off is near optimal, up to a logarithmic factor. Our proof builds and extends classical connections between streaming algorithms and communication complexity, concretely multi-party unique set-disjointness. We introduce two new ingredients that allow us to prove sharp bounds. The first is a lower bound for an asymmetric version of multi-party unique set-disjointness, where players receive input sets of different sizes, and where the communication of each player is normalized relative to their input length. The second is a combinatorial technique that allows to sample needles in the planted model by first sampling intervals, and then sampling a uniform needle in each interval.

preprint2023arXivOpen 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.