The area of derandomization attempts to provide efficient deterministic simulations of randomized algorithms in various algorithmic settings. Goldreich and Wigderson introduced a notion of “typically-correct” deterministic simulations, which are allowed to err on few inputs. In this paper we further the study of typically-correct derandomization in two ways.

First, we develop a generic approach for constructing typically-correct derandomizations based on seed-extending pseudorandom generators, which are pseudorandom generators that reveal their seed. We use our approach to obtain both conditional and unconditional typically-correct derandomization results in various algorithmic settings. We show that our technique strictly generalizes an earlier approach by Shaltiel based on randomness extractors, and simplifies the proofs of some known results. We also demonstrate that our approach is applicable in algorithmic settings where earlier work did not apply. For example, we present a typically-correct polynomial-time simulation for every language in BPP based on a hardness assumption that is weaker than the ones used in earlier work.

Second, we investigate whether typically-correct derandomization of BPP implies circuit lower bounds. Extending the work of Kabanets and Impagliazzo for the zero-error case, we establish a positive answer for error rates in the range considered by Goldreich and Wigderson. In doing so, we provide a simpler proof of the zero-error result. Our proof scales better than the original one and does not rely on the result by Impagliazzo, Kabanets, and Wigderson that NEXP having polynomial-size circuits implies that NEXP coincides with EXP.


Seed Length Pseudorandom Generator Algorithmic Setting Arithmetic Circuit Polynomial Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Babai, L., Nisan, N., Szegedy, M.: Multiparty protocols, pseudorandom generators for logspace, and time-space trade-offs. JCSS 45(2), 204–232 (1992)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feigenbaum, J., Fortnow, L.: Random-self-reducibility of complete sets. SICOMP 22(5) (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldreich, O., Wigderson, A.: Derandomization that is rarely wrong from short advice that is typically good. In: Rolim, J.D.P., Vadhan, S.P. (eds.) RANDOM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2483, pp. 209–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gutfreund, D., Shaltiel, R., Ta-Shma, A.: Uniform hardness versus randomness tradeoffs for Arthur-Merlin games. Comput. Compl. 12(3–4), 85–130 (2003)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Håstad, J.: Computational limitations of small-depth circuits. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., Wigderson, A.: In search of an easy witness: exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time. JCSS 65(4), 672–694 (2002)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Impagliazzo, R., Wigderson, A.: Randomness vs time: Derandomization under a uniform assumption. JCSS 63(4), 672–688 (2001)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kabanets, V.: Easiness assumptions and hardness tests: Trading time for zero error. JCSS 63(2), 236–252 (2001)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kabanets, V., Impagliazzo, R.: Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds. Comput. Compl. 13(1/2), 1–46 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kannan, R.: Circuit-size lower bounds and nonreducibility to sparse sets. Inf. Cont. 55(1), 40–56 (1982)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klivans, A.R., van Melkebeek, D.: Graph nonisomorphism has subexponential size proofs unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. SICOMP 31(5), 1501–1526 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miltersen, P.B.: Derandomizing complexity classes. In: Handbook of Randomized Computing, pp. 843–941. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nisan, N.: On read-once vs. multiple access to randomness in logspace. Theor. Comp. Sci. 107(1), 135–144 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: Hardness vs. randomness. JCSS 49(2), 149–167 (1994)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reingold, O.: Undirected connectivity in log-space. JACM 55(4) (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaltiel, R.: Weak derandomization of weak algorithms: explicit versions of Yao’s lemma. In: Proc. Conf. Comput. Compl. (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shaltiel, R., Umans, C.: Low-end uniform hardness vs. randomness tradeoffs for AM. In: Proc. of the ACM Symp. Theory of Comp., pp. 430–439 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toda, S.: PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SICOMP 20(5), 865–877 (1991)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trevisan, L.: Extractors and pseudorandom generators. JACM 48(4), 860–879 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trevisan, L., Vadhan, S.P.: Pseudorandomness and average-case complexity via uniform reductions. Comput. Compl. 16(4), 331–364 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Viola, E.: Pseudorandom bits for constant-depth circuits with few arbitrary symmetric gates. SICOMP 36(5), 1387–1403 (2006)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zanko, V.: #P-completeness via many-one reductions. Intl. J. Found. Comp. Sci. 2(1), 77–82 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zimand, M.: Exposure-resilient extractors. In: Proc. Conf. Comput. Compl., pp. 61–72 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zimand, M.: Exposure-resilient extractors and the derandomization of probabilistic sublinear time. Comput. Compl. 17(2), 220–253 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Kinne
    • 1
  • Dieter van Melkebeek
    • 1
  • Ronen Shaltiel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations