Goldreich Levin Theorem

sbluff

2/27/24, 4:53 PM

I am running into the Goldreich Levin Theorem.

According to what I know a predicate $h: \{ 0,1 \}^* \to \{ 0,1 \} $ is a hardcore predicate for a function $f: \{ 0,1 \}^* \to \{ 0,1 \}^* $ if:

$h$ is deterministic and efficiently computable
It's hard to find $h(x)$ given $f(x)$ for any probabilistic time adversary

The Goldreich Levin Theorem states that a hardcore predicate can be found given any OWF

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard-core_predicate) and every other research paper that I found (ie. https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~omkant/S06.pdf) this hardcore predicate is generated as follows:

"Let $f$ be a OWF (OWP). We defined the function $g(x, r) = (f(x), r)$ where, $|x| = |r|$. It is not hard to see that g is also a OWF (OWP). The Goldreich-Levin Theorem proves that $h(x, r) =< x, r >$ is a hard core predicate for $g$."

I don't really understand the $<x, r>$ notation, in Wikipedia I found that <> stands for inner product / XOR. But according to the definition above, a hardcore predicate $h: \{ 0,1 \}^* \to \{ 0,1 \} $ for a function $f: \{ 0,1 \}^* \to \{ 0,1 \}^* $ is supposed to be a decission problem (0/1) whereas in this definition $|h(x)| > 1$, actually it should be $|h(x)| = |x| = |r| = |x \oplus r|$

EDIT

I have found this question in the forum about the notation What Does This Symbol Mean? (Hardcore Predicates for One-Way Functions) but it still doesn't solve my question about the output size of the hardcore predicate

1 + 0

hard-core-predicate

Score:2

Crypto

sbluff

2/27/24, 5:20 PM

I just found out the answer, the notation $<>$ stands indeed for the inner product, which is defined as follows for binary strings:

$h(x, r) = <x, r> = \sum x_{i}r_{i} \mod 2$

Here's an example: $x=1101, r=1101 $

$h(x, r) = <x, r> = \sum x_{i}r_{i}\mod 2 = 1*1+1*1+0*0+1*1 \mod 2 = 3 \mod 2 = 1$

+ 1

kodlu

2/27/24, 8:55 PM

Your answer is correct. You can accept it.

Elon Musk

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

EN: Goldreich Levin Theorem

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.