Cited by 324Computability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsCoding theory and cryptography

Extractors and pseudorandom generators

Luca Trevisan·2001·Journal of the ACM

Abstract

We introduce a new approach to constructing extractors. Extractors are algorithms that transform a “weakly random” distribution into an almost uniform distribution. Explicit constructions of extractors have a variety of important applications, and tend to be very difficult to obtain.We demonstrate an unsuspected connection between extractors and pseudorandom generators. In fact, we show that every pseudorandom generator of a certain kind is an extractor.A pseudorandom generator construction due to Impagliazzo and Wigderson, once reinterpreted via our connection, is already an extractor that beats most known constructions and solves an important open question. We also show that, using the simpler Nisan--Wigderson generator and standard error-correcting codes, one can build even better extractors with the additional advantage that both the construction and the analysis are simple and admit a short self-contained description.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/502090.502099

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trevisan's extractor is a strong extractor (its seed can be reused) and its seed length is the polylogarithmic function of the input.

    “Moreover, it is a strong extractor (its seed can be reused) and its seed length is the polylogarithmic function of the input.”

    From Quantum random number generation (2016) · cites this paper as [97]

  • Trevisan's extractor has been proven to be secure against quantum adversaries.

    “Trevisan ' s extractor 97,98 has been proven to be secure against quantum adversaries. 99”

    From Quantum random number generation (2016) · cites this paper as [97]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trevisan, L.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Luca Trevisan
Venue
Journal of the ACM
Published
2001-07
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
860-879
ISSN
  • 0004-5411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-735X
OpenAlex
W1967175855
Cited by
324
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 21
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the ACM (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Coding theory and cryptography
Keywords
extractors, pseudorandom generators, weak randomness, explicit constructions, error-correcting codes, randomness extraction, pseudorandomness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review