## Hardness hypotheses, derandomization, and circuit complexity (2004)

Venue: | In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science |

Citations: | 18 - 5 self |

### BibTeX

@INPROCEEDINGS{Hitchcock04hardnesshypotheses,,

author = {John M. Hitchcock},

title = {Hardness hypotheses, derandomization, and circuit complexity},

booktitle = {In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science},

year = {2004},

pages = {336--347},

publisher = {Springer-Verlag}

}

### OpenURL

### Abstract

Abstract We consider hypotheses about nondeterministic computation that have been studied in dif-ferent contexts and shown to have interesting consequences: * The measure hypothesis: NP does not have p-measure 0.* The pseudo-NP hypothesis: there is an NP language that can be distinguished from anyDTIME(2 nffl) language by an NP refuter. * The NP-machine hypothesis: there is an NP machine accepting 0 * for which no 2n ffl-time machine can find infinitely many accepting computations. We show that the NP-machine hypothesis is implied by each of the first two. Previously, norelationships were known among these three hypotheses. Moreover, we unify previous work by showing that several derandomizations and circuit-size lower bounds that are known to followfrom the first two hypotheses also follow from the NP-machine hypothesis. In particular, the NPmachine hypothesis becomes the weakest known uniform hardness hypothesis that derandomizesAM. We also consider UP versions of the above hypotheses as well as related immunity and scaled dimension hypotheses. 1 Introduction The following uniform hardness hypotheses are known to imply full derandomization of ArthurMerlin games (NP = AM): * The measure hypothesis: NP does not have p-measure 0 [24].