How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Pairwise-independent hashing controls fibre size
Statement
Let be a finite set with , let be a nonempty finite set, and let be a nonempty finite family of maps from to . Assume pairwise independence: under a uniform choice of , for distinct and all , For and , put . Then and . Write . The test has probability at most when , and at least when .
The corresponding public challenge announces (and the fixed target ), asks the prover for , and accepts exactly when and . Its optimal acceptance probability is , giving the stated gap between these two promised size regimes. When elements and hashes have polynomial-length encodings, the uniform hash is sampled using polynomially many fair bits, and hash evaluation and membership in are polynomial-time decidable, this is a polynomial-time public-coin challenge: the verifier announces every sampling bit before receiving the response, then performs the stated deterministic checks.
Proof
Given: with , a pairwise-independent family, and .
[F1] Expectation is the finite weighted sum in Expectation of a real random variable on a finite probability space, here with each hash of weight ; variance is the squared-deviation expectation in Variance, standard deviation, and covariance on a finite probability space.
Write , where indicates . Summing the assumed joint probabilities over outputs at any distinct input gives . For distinct , , so their covariance is zero by expansion of its defining finite sum.
Interchanging finite sums gives . Expanding and using the zero cross terms gives . Since , each summand is . Thus .
Since is a nonnegative integer, , so in the small regime. For , on one has , hence . Therefore when .
If , no prover response passes the stated checks. If , an unrestricted prover can supply a valid preimage. Thus the optimal acceptance probability is exactly . The checks are polynomial-time under the stated encoding and algorithmic hypotheses, and revealing every sampling bit before the response makes the protocol public-coin. This proves the quantitative challenge claim.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
6 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Arora and Barak, §8.4.1 (standard reference, not scraped)