Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Aryeh Grinberg

dblp:217/9821 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 67% Algorithms and data structures · 33%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithms and data structures
decision tree
0.312018
Indistinguishability by Adaptive Procedures with Advice, and Lower Bounds on Hardness Amplification Proofs · FOCS 2018
Computational complexity › pseudorandomness
hardness amplification
0.312018
Indistinguishability by Adaptive Procedures with Advice, and Lower Bounds on Hardness Amplification Proofs · FOCS 2018
Computational complexity
lower bounds
0.312018
Indistinguishability by Adaptive Procedures with Advice, and Lower Bounds on Hardness Amplification Proofs · FOCS 2018
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
pseudorandom generators
0.112018
Indistinguishability by Adaptive Procedures with Advice, and Lower Bounds on Hardness Amplification Proofs · FOCS 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

forbidden-set lemma · 0.7fixed-set lemma · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Indistinguishability by Adaptive Procedures with Advice, and Lower Bounds on Hardness Amplification Proofs
abstract
We study how well can q-query decision trees distinguish between the following two distributions: (i) R = (R1,...,RN) that are i.i.d. indicator random variables, (ii) X=(R|R ϵ A) where A is an event s.t. Pr[R ϵ A] ≥ 2-a. We prove two lemmas: · Forbidden-set lemma: There exists B ⊆ [N] of size poly(a, q, 1/η) such that q-query trees that do not query variables in B cannot distinguish X from R with advantage η. · Fixed-set lemma: There exists B ⊆ [N] of size poly(a, q,1/η) and v ϵ0,1Bsuch that q-query trees do not distinguish (X|XB=v) from (R|RB=v) with advantage η. The first can be seen as an extension of past work by Edmonds, Impagliazzo, Rudich and Sgall (Computational Complexity 2001), Raz (SICOMP 1998), and Shaltiel and Viola (SICOMP 2010) to adaptive decision trees. It is independent of recent work by Meir and Wigderson (ECCC 2017) bounding the number of i ϵ [N] for which there exists a q-query tree that predicts Xifrom the other bits. We use the second, fixed-set lemma to prove lower bounds on black-box proofs for hardness amplification that amplify hardness from δ to 1/2-ϵ. Specifically: · Reductions must make q=Ω(log(1/δ)/ϵ2) queries, implying a "size loss factor" of q. We also prove the lower bound q=Ω(log(1/δ)/ϵ) for "error-less" hardness amplification proofs, and for direct-product lemmas. These bounds are tight. · Reductions can be used to compute Majority on Ω(1/ϵ) bits, implying that black box proofs cannot amplify hardness of functions that are hard against constant depth circuits (unless they are allowed to use Majority gates). Both items extend to pseudorandom-generator constructions. These results prove 15-year-old conjectures by Viola, and improve on three incomparable previous works (Shaltiel and Viola, SICOMP 2010; Gutfreund and Rothblum, RANDOM 2008; Artemenko and Shaltiel, Computational Complexity 2014).
Aryeh Grinberg, Ronen Shaltiel, Emanuele Viola
FOCS1