Abstract
We construct a pseudorandom generator that fools known-order read-k oblivious branching programs and, more generally, any linear length oblivious branching program. For polynomial width branching programs, the seed lengths in our constructions are Õ(n1−1/2k−1) (for the read-k case) and O(n/ log log n) (for the linear length case). Previously, the best construction for these models required seed length (1 − Ω(1))n.
- Manindra Agrawal, Rohit Gurjar, Arpita Korwar, and Nitin Saxena. 2015. Hitting-sets for ROABP and sum of set-multilinear circuits. SIAM J. Comput. 44, 3 (2015), 669--697. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/140975103Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Matthew Anderson, Michael A. Forbes, Ramprasad Saptharishi, Amir Shpilka, and Ben Lee Volk. 2018. Identity testing and lower bounds for read-k oblivious algebraic branching programs. TOCT 10, 1 (2018), 3:1--3:30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3170709Google Scholar
- 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 (FOCS’11). 240--246. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2011.57Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Andrej Bogdanov, Periklis A. Papakonstantinou, and Andrew Wan. 2012. Pseudorandomness for linear length branching programs and stack machines. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (RANDOM’12) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 7408. Springer, 447--458. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32512-0_38Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mark Braverman, Anup Rao, Ran Raz, and Amir Yehudayoff. 2014. Pseudorandom generators for regular branching programs. SIAM J. Comput. 43, 3 (2014), 973--986. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/120875673Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Matei David, Periklis A. Papakonstantinou, and Anastasios Sidiropoulos. 2011. How strong is Nisan’s pseudo-random generator? Inf. Process. Lett. 111, 16 (2011), 804--808. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2011.04.013Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Anindya De. 2011. Pseudorandomness for permutation and regular branching programs. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’11). 221--231. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2011.23Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Richard A. DeMillo and Richard J. Lipton. 1978. A probabilistic remark on algebraic program testing. Inform. Process. Lett. 7, 4 (1978), 193--195. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(78)90067-4Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Michael A. Forbes, Ramprasad Saptharishi, and Amir Shpilka. 2014. Hitting sets for multilinear read-once algebraic branching programs, in any order. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’14). 867--875. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2591796.2591816Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Michael A. Forbes and Amir Shpilka. 2013. Quasipolynomial-time identity testing of non-commutative and read-once oblivious algebraic branching programs. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’13). 243--252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2013.34 Full version at arXiv:1209.2408.Google Scholar
- Rohit Gurjar, Arpita Korwar, and Nitin Saxena. 2017. Identity testing for constant-width, and any-order, read-once oblivious arithmetic branching programs. Theory of Computing 13, 2 (2017), 1--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2017.v013a002 Preliminary version in the 31st Annual Computational Complexity Conference (CCC’16).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Elad Haramaty, Chin Ho Lee, and Emanuele Viola. 2018. Bounded independence plus noise fools products. SIAM J. Comput. 47, 2 (2018), 493--523. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/17M1129088. Preliminary version in the 32nd Annual Computational Complexity Conference (CCC’17).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Russell Impagliazzo, Raghu Meka, and David Zuckerman. 2019. Pseudorandomness from shrinkage. J. ACM 66, 2 (2019), 11:1--11:16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3230630. Preliminary version in the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’12).Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Russell Impagliazzo, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. 1994. Pseudorandomness for network algorithms. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’94). 356--364. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/195058.195190Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Michal Koucký, Prajakta Nimbhorkar, and Pavel Pudlák. 2011. Pseudorandom generators for group products: Extended abstract. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’11). 263--272. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1993636.1993672Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Noam Nisan. 1992. Pseudorandom generators for space-bounded computation. Combinatorica 12, 4 (1992), 449--461. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305237Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Omer Reingold, Thomas Steinke, and Salil P. Vadhan. 2013. Pseudorandomness for regular branching programs via fourier analysis. In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (RANDOM’13). 655--670. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40328-6_45Google Scholar
- Jacob T. Schwartz. 1980. Fast probabilistic algorithms for verification of polynomial identities. J. ACM 27, 4 (1980), 701--717. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/322217.322225Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Amir Shpilka and Amir Yehudayoff. 2010. Arithmetic circuits: A survey of recent results and open questions. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science 5 (March 2010), 207--388. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000039Google Scholar
- Thomas Steinke. 2012. Pseudorandomness for permutation branching programs without the group theory. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 19 (2012), 83. http://eccc.hpi-web.de/report/2012/083.Google Scholar
- Thomas Steinke, Salil P. Vadhan, and Andrew Wan. 2017. Pseudorandomness and fourier-growth bounds for width-3 branching programs. Theory of Computing 13, 1 (2017), 1--50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2017.v013a012. Preliminary version in the 18th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (RANDOM’14).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard Zippel. 1979. Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials. In Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, EUROSAM’79, An International Symposiumon Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 72. Springer, 216--226. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-09519-5_73Google Scholar
Index Terms
Pseudorandom Bits for Oblivious Branching Programs
Recommendations
Pseudorandom Bits for Polynomials
We present a new approach to constructing pseudorandom generators that fool low-degree polynomials over finite fields, based on the Gowers norm. Using this approach, we obtain the following main constructions of explicitly computable generators $G:\...
Simple extractors for all min-entropies and a new pseudorandom generator
A “randomness extractor” is an algorithm that given a sample from a distribution with sufficiently high min-entropy and a short random seed produces an output that is statistically indistinguishable from uniform. (Min-entropy is a measure of the amount ...
Pseudorandom Bits for Constant-Depth Circuits with Few Arbitrary Symmetric Gates
We exhibit an explicitly computable pseudorandom generator stretching $l$ bits into $m(l) = l^{\Omega(\log l)}$ bits that look random to constant-depth circuits of size $m(l)$ with $\log m(l)$ arbitrary symmetric gates (e.g., PARITY, MAJORITY). This ...






Comments