Halfspaces are hard to test with relative error
This provides the first example where relative-error testing is provably harder than standard testing for a well-studied function class, impacting property testing theory.
The paper tackles the problem of testing halfspaces (linear threshold functions) under a relative-error criterion for sparse Boolean functions, showing that at least ~Ω(log n) oracle calls are required, in contrast to constant-query testability in the standard model.
Several recent works [DHLNSY25, CPPS25a, CPPS25b] have studied a model of property testing of Boolean functions under a \emph{relative-error} criterion. In this model, the distance from a target function $f: \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}$ that is being tested to a function $g$ is defined relative to the number of inputs $x$ for which $f(x)=1$; moreover, testing algorithms in this model have access both to a black-box oracle for $f$ and to independent uniform satisfying assignments of $f$. The motivation for this model is that it provides a natural framework for testing \emph{sparse} Boolean functions that have few satisfying assignments, analogous to well-studied models for property testing of sparse graphs. The main result of this paper is a lower bound for testing \emph{halfspaces} (i.e., linear threshold functions) in the relative error model: we show that $\tildeΩ(\log n)$ oracle calls are required for any relative-error halfspace testing algorithm over the Boolean hypercube $\{0,1\}^n$. This stands in sharp contrast both with the constant-query testability (independent of $n$) of halfspaces in the standard model [MORS10], and with the positive results for relative-error testing of many other classes given in [DHLNSY25, CPPS25a, CPPS25b]. Our lower bound for halfspaces gives the first example of a well-studied class of functions for which relative-error testing is provably more difficult than standard-model testing.