skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Pseudorandomness from Shrinkage

Published:05 April 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

One powerful theme in complexity theory and pseudorandomness in the past few decades has been the use of lower bounds to give pseudorandom generators (PRGs). However, the general results using this hardness vs. randomness paradigm suffer from a quantitative loss in parameters, and hence do not give nontrivial implications for models where we don’t know super-polynomial lower bounds but do know lower bounds of a fixed polynomial. We show that when such lower bounds are proved using random restrictions, we can construct PRGs which are essentially best possible without in turn improving the lower bounds.

More specifically, say that a circuit family has shrinkage exponent Γ if a random restriction leaving a p fraction of variables unset shrinks the size of any circuit in the family by a factor of pΓ + o(1). Our PRG uses a seed of length s1/(Γ + 1) + o(1) to fool circuits in the family of size s. By using this generic construction, we get PRGs with polynomially small error for the following classes of circuits of size s and with the following seed lengths:

(1) For de Morgan formulas, seed length s1/3+o(1);

(2) For formulas over an arbitrary basis, seed length s1/2+o(1);

(3) For read-once de Morgan formulas, seed length s.234...;

(4) For branching programs of size s, seed length s1/2+o(1).

The previous best PRGs known for these classes used seeds of length bigger than n/2 to output n bits, and worked only for size s=O(n) [8].

References

  1. Miklós Ajtai and Avi Wigderson. 1985. Deterministic simulation of probabilistic constant depth circuits (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the 26th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 11--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Noga Alon, László Babai, and Alon Itai. 1986. A fast and simple randomized parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. J. Algorithms 7, 4 (1986), 567--583. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Alon and J. H. Spencer. 2011. The Probabilistic Method. Wiley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. E. Andreev. 1987. On a method for obtaining more than quadratic effective lower bounds for the complexity of π-schemes. Moscow Univ. Math. Bull. 42, 1 (1987), 63--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sergei Artemenko and Ronen Shaltiel. 2011. Lower bounds on the query complexity of non-uniform and adaptive reductions showing hardness amplification. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM. 377--388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. László Babai, Lance Fortnow, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. 1993. BPP has subexponential time simulations unless EXPTIME has publishable proofs. Computational Complexity 3 (1993), 307--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Manuel Blum and Silvio Micali. 1984. How to generate cryptographically strong sequences of pseudo-random bits. SIAM J. Comput. 13, 4 (1984), 850--864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andrej Bogdanov, Periklis A. Papakonstantinou, and Andrew Wan. 2011. Pseudorandomness for read-once formulas. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 240--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Eshan Chattopadhyay, Pooya Hatami, Omer Reingold, and Avishay Tal. 2017. Improved pseudorandomness for unordered branching programs through local monotonicity. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 24 (2017), 171.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. V. Guruswami, C. Umans, and S. Vadhan. 2009. Unbalanced expanders and randomness extractors from Parvaresh-Vardy codes. J. ACM 56 (2009), 1--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dan Gutfreund and Salil P. Vadhan. 2008. Limitations of hardness vs. randomness under uniform reductions. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM. 469--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Johan Håstad. 1998. The shrinkage exponent of de Morgan Formulas is 2. SIAM J. Comput. 27, 1 (1998), 48--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Johan Håstad, Alexander A. Razborov, and Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. 1995. On the shrinkage exponent for read-once formulae. Theor. Comput. Sci. 141, 1&2 (1995), 269--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Avi Wigderson. 2002. In search of an easy witness: Exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 65, 4 (2002), 672--694. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Russell Impagliazzo and Noam Nisan. 1993. The effect of random restrictions on formula size. Random Struct. Algorithms 4, 2 (1993), 121--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Russell Impagliazzo, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. 1994. Pseudorandomness for network algorithms. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 356--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Valentine Kabanets and Russell Impagliazzo. 2004. Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds. Computational Complexity 13, 1--2 (2004), 1--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. V. M. Khrapchenko. 1971. Complexity of the realization of a linear function in the class of π-circuits. Math. Notes Acad. Sciences USSR 9 (1971), 21--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ilan Komargodski and Ran Raz. 2013. Average-case lower bounds for formula size. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 171--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. I. Komargodski, R. Raz, and A. Tal. 2013. Improved average-case lower bounds for DeMorgan formula size. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 588--597. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Noam Nisan. 1991. Pseudorandom bits for constant depth circuits. Combinatorica 11, 1 (1991), 63--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Noam Nisan. 1992. Pseudorandom generators for space-bounded computation. Combinatorica 12, 4 (1992), 449--461.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. 1994. Hardness vs Randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49, 2 (1994), 149--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Noam Nisan and David Zuckerman. 1996. Randomness is linear in space. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 52, 1 (1996), 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Mike Paterson and Uri Zwick. 1993. Shrinkage of de Morgan formulae under restriction. Random Struct. Algorithms 4, 2 (1993), 135--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. O. Reingold, T. Steinke, and S. P. Vadhan. 2013. Pseudorandomness for regular branching programs via fourier analysis. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM. 655--670.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeanette P. Schmidt, Alan Siegel, and Aravind Srinivasan. 1995. Chernoff-Hoeffding bounds for applications with limited independence. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 8, 2 (1995), 223--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ronen Shaltiel and Emanuele Viola. 2008. Hardness amplification proofs require majority. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 589--598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Thomas Steinke, Salil P. Vadhan, and Andrew Wan. 2014. Pseudorandomness and Fourier growth bounds for width-3 branching programs. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM. 885--899.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. B. A. Subbotovskaya. 1961. Realizations of linear functions by formulas using +, *, −. Sov. Math. Dokl. 2 (1961), 110--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Avishay Tal. 2014. Shrinkage of De Morgan formulae by spectral techniques. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 551--560. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Luca Trevisan and Tongke Xue. 2013. A derandomized switching lemma and an improved derandomization of AC0. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Computational Complexity. 242--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Leslie G. Valiant. 1984. Short monotone formulae for the majority function. J. Algorithms 5, 3 (1984), 363--366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Thomas Watson. 2011. Query complexity in errorless hardness amplification. In Proceedings of APPROX-RANDOM. 688--699. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ryan Williams. 2010. Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 231--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. 1982. Theory and applications of trapdoor functions (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 80--91. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David Zuckerman. 1997. Randomness-optimal oblivious sampling. Random Struct. Algorithms 11, 4 (1997), 345--367. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Pseudorandomness from Shrinkage

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Journal of the ACM
          Journal of the ACM  Volume 66, Issue 2
          April 2019
          260 pages
          ISSN:0004-5411
          EISSN:1557-735X
          DOI:10.1145/3318168
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 5 April 2019
          • Accepted: 1 November 2018
          • Revised: 1 October 2018
          • Received: 1 December 2017
          Published in jacm Volume 66, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format