English

On a Boolean function without bold folding in the spectrum support and implications for greedy approaches to PDT depth

Computational Complexity 2026-07-06 v1

Abstract

We study Boolean functions and their Fourier spectrum supports in the context of parity decision trees (PDTs). Recently, H.~Hatami et al.~\cite{HHL+} constructed examples whose Fourier support S\mathcal S satisfies (S+γ1)(S+γ2)=O(S5/6) |(\mathcal S+\gamma_1)\cap(\mathcal S+\gamma_2)|=O(|\mathcal S|^{5/6}) for all distinct γ1,γ2\gamma_1,\gamma_2, thereby refuting a natural greedy approach based on finding a single large folding direction. We strengthen this folding estimate by constructing an explicit infinite family of Boolean functions such that (S+γ1)(S+γ2)=O(S1/2) |(\mathcal S+\gamma_1)\cap(\mathcal S+\gamma_2)|=O(|\mathcal S|^{1/2}) for all distinct γ1,γ2\gamma_1,\gamma_2. The construction uses a special affine subspace partition, called an APLPS-partition, obtained from full linear spreads. In contrast with the probabilistic construction of \cite{HHL+}, our construction is explicit and has no background spectral components. We also discuss consequences for greedy approaches to PDT construction. Under the <<lazy>> assumption that the maximum-folding bound is inherited by all restrictions, the usual folding-counting argument cannot yield a PDT upper bound better than O(S1/2)O(|\mathcal S|^{1/2}), matching the known general upper bound. However, this inheritance assumption is false in general; hence our result refutes only this <<lazy>> maximum-folding approach, while a complete refutation of adaptive greedy strategies remains open.

Cite

@article{arxiv.2607.04806,
  title  = {On a Boolean function without bold folding in the spectrum support and implications for greedy approaches to PDT depth},
  author = {Yuriy Tarannikov},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.04806},
  year   = {2026}
}