Skip to main content

All Questions

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
3 votes
1 answer
152 views

Algebraic construction of $\varepsilon$-biased sets

Let $\ell> 1$ be an integer and consider the mapping $\text{Tr}:\mathbb{F}_{2^\ell}\to\mathbb{F}_{2^\ell}$ defined by $$\text{Tr}(x)=x^{2^0}+x^{2^{1}}+\cdots+x^{2^{\ell-1}}$$ It is then possible to ...
user621824's user avatar
3 votes
0 answers
69 views

Pseudodeterministically choosing elements from efficiently samplable distributions (or, the plausibility of a weak choice principle)

Suppose we have a poly-time samplable family of distribution. I.e., a family of distributions $D_n \subseteq \{0, 1\}^{\mathsf{poly}(n)}$ and an algorithm $S$ for which $D_n = (r \leftarrow^\$ \{0,1\}^...
Izaak Meckler's user avatar
2 votes
0 answers
98 views

Scaled down and scaled up versions of Impagliazzo-Wigderson Therem

A famous theorem due to Impagliazzo and Wigderson states that if some function in $E=DTIME[2^{O(n)}]$ requires circuits of size $2^{\Omega(n)}$ then P=BPP. When can we change $P$ with some ...
verifying's user avatar
  • 1,072
10 votes
2 answers
1k views

Is it known whether $BPP\cap NP\subseteq RP$?

The reverse inclusion is obvious, as is the fact that any self-reducible NP language in BPP is also in RP. Is this also known to hold for non-self-reducible NP languages?
bppcapnpvsrp's user avatar
17 votes
0 answers
325 views

Problem-Dependent Derandomization

The famous result of Impagliazzo and Wigderson in '97 cemented our belief that BPP is most likely the same as P; that is, problems that can be efficiently solved with randomness can also be ...
Henry Yuen's user avatar
  • 3,888
17 votes
1 answer
561 views

Fooling arbitrary symmetric functions

A distribution $\mathcal{D}$ is said to $\epsilon$-fool a function $f$ if $|E_{x\in U}(f(x)) - E_{x\in \mathcal{D}}(f(x))| \leq \epsilon$. And it is said to fool a class of functions if it fools every ...
Ramprasad's user avatar
  • 2,492