Polylogarithmic independence fools AC0 circuits by Mark Braverman (JACM 2010)To explain this result consider choosing uniformly from among the following four strings:
000 110 101 011
If we look at any two of the bits, say the first and third, all four possibilities 00 10 11 01 occur. The sequence is thus 2-wise independent. We can get 2-wise independence using only two random bits to choose one of the four strings. In general one can get k-wise independent in n-bit strings using O(k2 log n) random bits.Braverman shows that any polylogarithmic independent distribution fools polynomial-size constant-depth circuits (AC0), or more precisely for a size s depth d circuit C, for k=(log (m/ε))O(d2), the probability that C will output 1 with uniformly-random inputs will differ at most ε from the probability C outputs 1 from inputs chosen from a k-wise random distribution. Braverman's result followed after Bazzi and Razborov proved a similar result for depth-2 circuits (CNF formulas).
Another nice result along these lines: Ilias Diakonikolas, Parikshit Gopalan, Ragesh Jaiswal, Rocco Servedio and Emanuele Viola show that Bounded Independence Fools Halfspaces. A half-space is just a weighted threshold function (is the sum of wixi at most some given θ). Diakonikolas et al. show that one can fool halfspaces with k=O(ε-2log2(1/ε)), in particular for constant ε, k is a constant independent of the number of variables.
Only k\lg n random bits are needed for k-wise independent n-bit strings, see for example Vadhan's monograph (http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~salil/pseudorandomness/ , section 3.5.5).
ReplyDeleteBazzi has provided some information on the genesis of his paper, see http://emanueleviola.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/the-sandwich-revolution-behind-the-paper/
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the paper, but based on your description of the result, is an informal description that "any polylogarithmic independent distribution fools polynomial-size constant-depth circuits" justified? It sounds like the result establishes the existence of a deceptive polylogarithmic-independent distribution.
ReplyDeleteAdding emphasis to the previous comment for clarity... Based on your description of the result, is an informal description that "*any* polylogarithmic independent distribution fools polynomial-size constant-depth circuits" justified? It sounds like the result establishes the *existence* of a deceptive polylogarithmic-independent distribution.
ReplyDeleteBraverman does prove that every polylogarithmic independent distribution will fool poly-size constant depth circuits. I recommend reading Braverman's well-written paper, particularly the introduction, for more details.
Delete