Comparing computational entropies below majority (or: When is the dense model theorem false?)
This work addresses foundational issues in computational pseudorandomness, with implications for mathematics and computer science, but is incremental as it builds on known equivalences under majority closure.
The paper investigates the equivalence of three computational entropy definitions when the test class is not closed under majority, showing that the equivalence fails in such cases and providing counterexamples where the dense model theorem is false.
Computational pseudorandomness studies the extent to which a random variable $\bf{Z}$ looks like the uniform distribution according to a class of tests $\cal{F}$. Computational entropy generalizes computational pseudorandomness by studying the extent which a random variable looks like a \emph{high entropy} distribution. There are different formal definitions of computational entropy with different advantages for different applications. Because of this, it is of interest to understand when these definitions are equivalent. We consider three notions of computational entropy which are known to be equivalent when the test class $\cal{F}$ is closed under taking majorities. This equivalence constitutes (essentially) the so-called \emph{dense model theorem} of Green and Tao (and later made explicit by Tao-Zeigler, Reingold et al., and Gowers). The dense model theorem plays a key role in Green and Tao's proof that the primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions and has since been connected to a surprisingly wide range of topics in mathematics and computer science, including cryptography, computational complexity, combinatorics and machine learning. We show that, in different situations where $\cal{F}$ is \emph{not} closed under majority, this equivalence fails. This in turn provides examples where the dense model theorem is \emph{false}.