Proving Natural Distribution Properties is Harder than Testing Them

Suppose that an untrusted analyst claims that it ran a distribution tester and determined that an unknown distribution has a certain property. Can the untrusted analyst prove that its assertion is correct to a verifier that does not have sufficient samples and computational resources to run the tester on its own? In this work, we are interested in proofs that can be generated very efficiently, with minimal overhead over running the distribution tester. In particular, since the distribution tester is sublinear (in the domain size), at the very least we also want the sample complexity for generating the proof to be sublinear. Do natural properties that have sublinear testers admit such proof systems?

Our main result answers this question negatively for several natural properties. For these properties, if the verifier's sample complexity is non-trivial (smaller than just running the tester on its own), then the (honest) prover must draw a linear number of samples. We show this result for the problem of testing whether the distribution is uniform over its support, for specifying the distribution's k-collision probability (or its L k norm), and for other natural properties.

Our results shed light on a recent line of work showing that if we allow the prover to draw a quasi-linear number of samples, then many distribution properties have proof-systems with very efficient verification. Our negative results imply that the super-linear sample complexity of the prover in those proof-systems is inherent.