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

Sergei Artemenko

dblp:71/9212 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 6 · 4 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
3 papers
Computational complexity · 94% Automated reasoning and model checking · 6%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity
derandomization
0.732016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions (Extended Abstract) · CCC 2015
Pseudorandom generators with optimal seed length for non-boolean poly-size circuits · STOC 2014
Computational complexity
circuit complexity
0.522016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions (Extended Abstract) · CCC 2015
Computational complexity
pseudorandomness
0.522016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions (Extended Abstract) · CCC 2015
Computational complexity › derandomization
hardness versus randomness
0.212016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Computational complexity › derandomization
hitting set generators
0.212016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Computational complexity › pseudorandomness
extractors
0.212015
Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions (Extended Abstract) · CCC 2015
Computational complexity › pseudorandomness
pseudorandom generators
0.212014
Pseudorandom generators with optimal seed length for non-boolean poly-size circuits · STOC 2014
Automated reasoning and model checking › satisfiability
k-SAT
0.112016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability
0.112016
Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You · CCC 2016
Computational complexity › reduction
nondeterministic reductions
0.112015
Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions (Extended Abstract) · CCC 2015

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

hardness versus randomness tradeoff · 0.2hardness amplification · 0.2sampling procedures · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Pseudorandomness When the Odds are Against You
abstract
Impagliazzo and Wigderson (STOC 1997) showed that if E=DTIME(2^O(n)) requires size 2^Omega(n) circuits, then every time T constant-error randomized algorithm can be simulated deterministically in time poly(T). However, such polynomial slowdown is a deal breaker when T=2^(alpha*n), for a constant alpha>0, as is the case for some randomized algorithms for NP-complete problems. Paturi and Pudlak (STOC 2010) observed that many such algorithms are obtained from randomized time T algorithms, for T < 2^o(n), with large one-sided error 1-epsilon, for epsilon=2^(-alpha*n), that are repeated 1/epsilon times to yield a constant-error randomized algorithm running in time T/epsilon=2^((alpha+o(1))*n). We show that if E requires size 2^Omega(n) nondeterministic circuits, then there is a poly(n)-time epsilon-HSG (Hitting-Set Generator) H:{0,1}^(O(log(n)) + log(1/epsilon) -> {0,1}^n, implying that time T randomized algorithms with one-sided error 1-epsilon can be simulated in deterministic time poly(T)/epsilon. In particular, under this hardness assumption, the fastest known constant-error randomized algorithm for k-SAT (for k > 3) by Paturi et al. (J. ACM 2005) can be made deterministic with essentially the same time bound. This is the first hardness versus randomness tradeoff for algorithms for NP-complete problems. We address the necessity of our assumption by showing that HSGs with very low error imply hardness for nondeterministic circuits with "few" nondeterministic bits. Applebaum et al. (CCC 2015) showed that "black-box techniques" cannot achieve poly(n)-time computable epsilon-PRGs (Pseudo-Random Generators) for epsilon=n^-omega(1), even if we assume hardness against circuits with oracle access to an arbitrary language in the polynomial time hierarchy. We introduce weaker variants of PRGs with relative error, that do follow under the latter hardness assumption. Specifically, we say that a function G:{0,1}^r -> {0,1}^n is an (epsilon,delta)-re-PRG for a circuit C if (1-epsilon)*Pr[C(U_n)=1] - delta < Pr[C(G(U_r)=1] < (1+epsilon)*Pr[C(U_n)=1] + delta. We construct poly(n)-time computable (epsilon,delta)-re-PRGs with arbitrary polynomial stretch, epsilon=n^-O(1) and delta=2^(-n^Omega(1)). We also construct PRGs with relative error that fool non-boolean distinguishers (in the sense introduced by Dubrov and Ishai (STOC 2006)). Our techniques use ideas from Paturi and Pudlak (STOC 2010), Trevisan and Vadhan (FOCS 2000), Applebaum et al. (CCC 2015). Common themes in our proofs are "composing" a PRG/HSG with a combinatorial object such as dispersers and extractors, and the use of nondeterministic reductions in the spirit of Feige and Lund (Comp. Complexity 1997).
Sergei Artemenko, Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, Ronen Shaltiel
CCC1
2016 Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions
Benny Applebaum, Sergei Artemenko, Ronen Shaltiel, Guang Yang 0020
Comput. Complex.2
2015 Incompressible Functions, Relative-Error Extractors, and the Power of Nondeterministic Reductions (Extended Abstract)
Benny Applebaum, Sergei Artemenko, Ronen Shaltiel, Guang Yang 0020
CCC2
2014 Pseudorandom generators with optimal seed length for non-boolean poly-size circuits
abstract
A sampling procedure for a distribution P over {0, 1}ℓ, is a function C: {0, 1}n → {0, 1}ℓ such that the distribution C(Un) (obtained by applying C on the uniform distribution Un) is the "desired distribution" P. Let n > r ≥ ℓ = nΩ(1). An nb-PRG (defined by Dubrov and Ishai (STOC 2006)) is a function G: {0, 1}r → {0, 1}n such that for every C: {0, 1}n → {0, 1}ℓ in some class of "interesting sampling procedures", C' (Ur) = C(G(Ur)) is close to C(Un) in statistical distance.
Sergei Artemenko, Ronen Shaltiel
STOC1
2014 Lower Bounds on the Query Complexity of Non-uniform and Adaptive Reductions Showing Hardness Amplification
Sergei Artemenko, Ronen Shaltiel
Comput. Complex.1
2011 Lower Bounds on the Query Complexity of Non-uniform and Adaptive Reductions Showing Hardness Amplification
Sergei Artemenko, Ronen Shaltiel
APPROX-RANDOM1