Distinguishing, Predicting, and Certifying: On the Long Reach of Partial Notions of Pseudorandomness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper revisits the study of two classical technical tools in theoretical computer science: Yao's trans-formation of distinguishers to next-bit predictors (FOCS 1982), and the “reconstruction paradigm” in pseudorandomness (e.g., as in Nisan and Wigderson, JCSS 1994). Recent works of Pyne, Raz, and Zhan (FOCS 2023) and Doron, Pyne, and Tell (STOC 2024) showed that both of these tools can be derandomized in the specific context of read-once branching programs (ROBPs), but left open the question of de randomizing them in more general settings. Our main contributions give appealing evidence that derandomization of the two tools is possible in general settings, show surprisingly strong consequences of such derandomization, and reveal several new settings where such derandomization is unconditionally possible for algorithms stronger than ROBPs (with useful consequences). Specifically: •We show that derandomizing these tools is equivalent to general derandomization. Specifically, we show that derandomizing distinguish - to- predict transformations is equivalent to prBPP=prP, and that derandomized reconstruction procedures (in a more general sense that we introduce) is equivalent to prBPP=prZPP. These statements hold even when scaled down to weak circuit classes and to algorithms that run in super-polynomial time. •Our main technical contributions are unconditional constructions of derandomized versions of Yao's transformation (or reductions of this task to other problems) for classes and for algorithms beyond ROBPs. Consequently, we deduce new results: A significant relaxation of the hypotheses required to derandomize the isolation lemma for logspace algorithms and deduce that NL=UL; and proofs that de-randomization necessitates targeted PRGs in catalytic logspace (unconditionally) and in logspace (conditionally). In addition, we introduce a natural subclass of prZPP that has been implicitly studied in recent works (Korten FOCS 2021, CCC 2022): The class of problems reducible to a problem called “Lossy Code”. We provide a structural characterization for this class in terms of derandomized reconstruction procedures, and show that this characterization is robust to several natural variations. Lastly, we present alternative proofs for classical results in the theory of pseudorandomness (such as two-sided derandomization reducing to one-sided), relying on the notion of deterministically transforming distinguishers to predictors as the main technical tool.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".