On the One-Way Function Candidate Proposed by Goldreich
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goldreich [2000] proposed a candidate one-way function based on a bipartite graph of small right-degree d , where the vertices on the left (resp. right) represent input (resp. output) bits of the function. Each output bit is computed by evaluating a fixed d -ary binary predicate on the input bits adjacent to that output bit. We study this function when the predicate is random or depends linearly on many of its input bits. We assume that the graph is a random balanced bipartite graph with right-degree d . Inverting this function as a one-way function by definition means finding an element in the preimage of output of this function for a random input. We bound the expected size of this preimage. Next, using the preceding bound, we prove that two restricted types of backtracking algorithms called myopic and drunk backtracking algorithms with high probability take exponential time to invert the function, even if we allow the algorithms to use DPLL elimination rules. (For drunk algorithms, a similar result was proved by Itsykson [2010].) We also ran a SAT solver on the satisfiability problem equivalent to the problem of inverting the function, and experimentally observed an exponential increase in running time as a function of the input length.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it