k-Wise Independent Random Graphs

Abstract: We study the k-wise independent relaxation of the usual model G(N,p) of random graphs where, as in this model, N labeled vertices are fixed and each edge is drawn with probability p, however, it is only required that the distribution of any subset of k edges is independent. This relaxation can be relevant in modeling phenomena where only k-wise independence is assumed to hold, and is also useful when the relevant graphs are so huge that handling G(N,p) graphs becomes infeasible, and cheaper random-looking distributions (such as k-wise independent ones) must be used instead. Unfortunately, many well-known properties of random graphs in G(N,p) are global, and it is thus not clear if they are guaranteed to hold in the k-wise independent case. We explore the properties of k-wise independent graphs by providing upper-bounds and lower-bounds on the amount of independence, k, required for maintaining the main properties of G(N,p) graphs: connectivity, Hamiltonicity, the connectivity-number, clique-number and chromatic-number and the appearance of fixed subgraphs. Most of these properties are shown to be captured by either constant k or by some k= poly(log(N)) for a wide range of values of p, implying that random looking graphs on N vertices can be generated by a seed of size poly(log(N)). The proofs combine combinatorial, probabilistic and spectral techniques.

\section{{{\underline{\underline{#1}}}}}
\newcommand {\mysubsubsection} [1] {\subsubsection{{{#1}}}
\newcommand {\mysection} [1] {\section{{{#1}}}
\newcommand {\mysubsection} [1] {\subsection{{{#1}}}
\newcommand {\myParagraph} [1] {\subsubsection*{#1}}
\newcommand {\SaveSizeParagraph} [1] {\vspace{-1.6mm}\paragraph{#1}}
\newcommand {\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph} [1] {\vspace{-2.7mm}\paragraph{#1}}
\newcommand {\pr} [1] {\Pr \left[ {#1} \right]}
\newcommand {\given } {\hspace{0.2em} \vline \hspace{0.3em}}
\newcommand {\awlg} {assume w.l.o.g.~}
\newcommand {\Awlg} {Assume w.l.o.g.~}
\newcommand {\wlg} {w.l.o.g.~}
\newcommand {\Wlg} {W.l.o.g.~}
\newcommand {\wrt} {w.r.t.~}
\newcommand {\wip } {with probability~}
\newcommand {\wpm} {w.p.~}
\newcommand {\st}{s.t.~}
\newcommand {\as}{a.s.~}
\newcommand {\asns}{a.s.\hspace{-0.2ex}}
\newcommand {\etal} {et al.~\hspace{-0.1ex}}
\newcommand {\qed} {$\blacksquare$}
\newcommand {\qedm} {~\blacksquare}
\newcommand {\eqdef} {{~ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}} {=} ~}}
\newcommand {\poly} {\mathit{poly}}
\newcommand {\Z} {\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand {\N} {\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand {\lb} {\left(}
\newcommand {\rb} {\right)}
\newcommand {\lsb} {\left[}
\newcommand {\rsb} {\right]}
\newcommand {\ceil}[1] {\lceil {#1} \rceil}
\newcommand {\floor}[1] {\lfloor {#1} \rfloor}
\newcommand {\into} {\rightarrow}
\newcommand {\eps} {\epsilon}
\newcommand {\opmo} {{\scriptstyle (1 \pm o(1))}}
\newcommand {\opo} {{\scriptstyle (1 + o(1))}}
\newcommand {\omo} {{\scriptstyle (1 - o(1))}}
\newif \ifCiteName \CiteNamefalse
\newcommand {\myBib} [2]{\ifCiteName \bibitem[#1]{#2}\else \bibitem{#2}\fi}
\newcommand \myTitle {\emph}
\newcommand \myCite {}
\newcommand \andCoAuthersBib {, }
\newcommand \andCoAuthers {and }
\newcommand {\ER} {Erd\"{o}s \andCoAuthers R\'{e}nyi~}
\newcommand {\ERbib} {Erd\"{o}s and R\'{e}nyi~}
\newcommand {\Erd} {Erd\"{o}s~}
\newcommand {\Erdns} {Erd\"{o}s}
\newcommand {\Bol} {Bollob\'{a}s~}
\begin{document}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\title{\bf{k-wise independent random graphs}}
\author{Noga Alon\thanks{
Schools of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv 69978,
Israel, and IAS, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
Email:~{\texttt{nogaa@post.tau.ac.il.}}
Research supported in part by the Israel Science
Foundation and by a USA-Israeli BSF
grant.}
\and
Asaf Nussboim\thanks{Department of Computer Science and
Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot, Israel.
Email:~{\texttt{asaf.nussbaum@weizmann.ac.il.}}
{Partly supported by a grant from the Israel Science
Foundation.}}}
\date{}\maketitle
\begin {abstract}
We study the \kwi relaxation of the usual model \gnp of random
graphs where, as in this model,
$N$ labeled vertices are fixed and each edge
is drawn with probability $p$,
however, it is only required that the distribution of
any subset of $k$ edges is independent.
This relaxation can be relevant in modeling phenomena
where only \kwice is assumed to hold, and is also useful
when the relevant graphs are so huge
that handling \gnp graphs becomes infeasible, and
cheaper random-looking distributions (such as \kwi
ones) must be used instead. Unfortunately, many well-known
properties of random graphs in \gnp are global, and it is
thus not clear if they are
guaranteed to hold
in the \kwi case.
We explore the properties of \kwig by providing
upper-bounds and lower-bounds on the amount of
independence, $k$, required for maintaining the main
properties of \gnp graphs: connectivity,
Hamiltonicity, the connectivity-number, clique-number
and chromatic-number and the appearance of fixed
subgraphs.
Most of these properties are shown to be captured by
either constant $k$ or by some $k=\poly(\log(N))$ for
a wide range of values of $p$, implying that random looking graphs
on $N$ vertices can be generated by a seed of size
$\poly(\log(N))$. The proofs combine combinatorial, probabilistic
and spectral techniques.

\end {abstract}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\newpage \setcounter{page}{1}
\mysection{Introduction}
We study the \kwi relaxation of the usual model \gnp of random graphs
where, as in this model, $N$ labeled vertices are fixed and each
edge is drawn with probability (w.p., for short)~$p=p(N)$, however, it is only
required that the distribution of any subset of $k$
edges is independent (in \gnp all edges are
mutually independent).
These \kwig are natural combinatorial objects that
may prove to be useful in modeling scientific phenomena
where only \kwice is assumed to hold. Moreover,
they can be used when the relevant graphs are so huge, that handling \gnp graphs is infeasible, and cheaper random-looking distributions must be used instead.
However, what happens when the application that uses
these graphs (or the analysis conducted on them)
critically relies on the fact that \rgs are, say,
almost surely connected? After all, \kwice is defined via `local' conditions, so isn't it possible that
\kwig will fail to meet `global' qualities like
connectivity? This motivates studying which global attributes
of \rgs are captured by their \kwi counterparts.

Before elaborating on properties of \kwig we provide
some background on \kwicens, on properties of random
graphs, and on the emulation of huge random graphs.

\mysubsection
{Emulating Huge Random Graphs}
Suppose that one wishes to conduct some simulations on
random graphs. Utilizing \gnp graphs requires
resources polynomial in $N$, which is infeasible
when $N$ is huge (for example, exponential in the
input length, $n$, of the relevant algorithms).
A plausible solution is to replace \gnp by a
cheaper `random looking' distribution $\mathcal G_N$.
To this end, each graph $G$ in the support of
$\mathcal G_N$ is represented by a very short binary
string (called seed) $s(G)$, \st evaluating edge
queries on $G$ can be done efficiently when $s(G)$ is
known; Then, sampling a graph from $\mathcal G_N$ is
done by picking the seed uniformly at random.

Goldreich \etal were the first to address this scenario
in \cite{ggn}. They studied emulation by computationally
pseudorandom graphs, that are indistinguishable from \gnp from the view of
any $\poly(\log(N))$-time algorithm that inspects
graphs via edge-queries of its choice. They considered
several prominent properties of
\gnp graphs, and constructed computationally
pseudorandom graphs that preserve many of those
properties (see the final paragraph of Section \ref{compareGGN}).

We consider replacing \rgs by \kwi ones. The latter
can be sampled and accessed using only
$\poly(k\log(N))$-bounded resources. This is achieved
thanks to efficient constructions of discrete \kwi
variables by Joffe \cite{jof}, see also Alon, Babai and
Itai \cite{abi}:
the appearance of any potential edge in the graph is
simply decided by a single random bit (that has
probability $p$ to attain the value 1).
Such \kwig were used by Naor \etal \cite{nnt} to
efficiently capture arbitrary first-order properties
of huge \gnp graphs (see Section \ref{FO_paper}).

\mysubsection
{${\bf k}$-Wise Independent Random Variables}
Distributions of discrete \kwi variables play an
important role in computer science. Such distributions
are mainly used for de-randomizing algorithms (and for
some cryptographic applications). In addition, the
complexity of constructing \kwi variables was studied
in depth, and in particular, the aforementioned constructions
\cite{jof,abi} (based on degree $k$ polynomials over finite fields)
are known to provide essentially the smallest possible sample spaces.
Our work is, however, the first systematic
study of {\em combinatorial properties} of \kwi
objects. Properties of various other \kwi objects
(mainly percolation on $\Z^d$ and on Galton-Watson
trees) were subsequently explored by Benjamini,
Gurel-Gurevich and Peled \cite{bggp}.

\mysubsection
{The Combinatorial Structure of Random Graphs}
What are the principal attributes of \rgs that \kwi ones should maintain? Most theorems that manifest the remarkable structure of \rgs state that certain properties occur either almost surely (\as for
short), or alternatively hardly ever, (namely, \wip
tending either to 1 or to 0 as $N$ grows to $\infty$).
These results typically fall into one of the following
categories.

\SaveSizeParagraph{Tight concentration of measure.}
A variety of prominent random variables (regarding
random graphs) \as attain only values that are {\em
extremely close} to their expectation. For instance,
random graphs (with, say, constant $p$) \as have
connectivity number $\kappa=\opmo pN$, clique number
$c=\opmo \frac {2\log(pN)}{\log(1/p)}$ (\Bol
\andCoAuthers \Erd\cite{be}, Matula \cite{mat}, Frieze
\cite{fri}) and chromatic number $\chi=\opmo \frac
{N\log(1/1-p)}{2\log(pN)}$ (\Bol \cite{bolChi},
{\L}uczak \cite{l}).

\SaveSizeParagraph{Thresholds for monotone
properties.}
For a given monotone increasing\footnote{Namely, any
property closed under graph isomorphism and under
addition of edges.} graph property $T$, how large
should $p(N)$ be for the property to hold \asns?
This question had been settled for many prominent properties such as connectivity (\ER
\cite{erConn}), containing a perfect matching (\ER
\cite{erMatch1,erMatch2,erMatch3}), Hamiltonicity
(P\'{o}sa \cite{pos}, Kor\v sunov \cite{kor},
Koml\'{o}s \andCoAuthers Szemer\'{e}di \cite{ks0}), and
the property of containing copies of some fixed
graph $H$ (\ER \cite{erGiant}, \Bol \cite{bolsub}).
For these (and other) graph properties the sufficient
density (for obtaining the property) is surprisingly
small, and moreover, a threshold phenomenon occurs when
by `slightly' increasing the density from
$\underline{p}(N)$ to $\overline{p}(N)$, the
probability that $T$ holds dramatically changes from
$o(1)$ to $1-o(1)$.%
\footnote{Thresholds for prominent properties are
often so sharp that $\overline{p}=(1+o(1))
\underline{p}$. Somewhat coarser thresholds were (later)
established for {\em arbitrary} monotone properties by
\Bol \andCoAuthers Thomason \cite{bt}, and by Friedgut
\andCoAuthers Kalai \cite{fk}.}
Thus, good emulation requires the property $T$ to be guaranteed at densities as close as possible to the true \gnp threshold.

\SaveSizeParagraph{Zero-one laws.}
These well known theorems reveal that {\em any} first-order
property holds either \as or hardly ever for \gnpns. A
first-order property is any graph property that can be
expressed by a single formula in the canonical
language where variables stand for vertices and the
only relations are equality and adjacency (e.g.~``having an isolated vertex" is specified
by $\exists x \forall y \neg \mbox{\sc edge} (x,y)$).
These Zero-one laws hold for any fixed $p$ (Fagin \cite{fag}, Glebskii, Kogan, Liagonkii \andCoAuthers Talanov \cite{gklt}), and whenever $p(N)=N^{-\alpha}$ for a fixed irrational $\alpha$ (Shelah \andCoAuthers
Spencer \cite {ss}).

\mysection
{Our Contribution}

We investigate the properties of \kwig by providing
upper bounds and lower bounds on the `minimal' amount of
independence, $k_T$, required for maintaining the main properties $T$
of random graphs.\ifPersonal\footnote{When $k={{N \choose 2}}$ we get the original \gnp graphs, while for, say, $k=1$ (e.g., the case where \wip $p$ the graph is complete and otherwise it is empty) the resulting graphs have very little in common with \gnp graphs.} \else{ }\fi
The properties considered are:
connectivity, perfect matchings, Hamiltonicity, the
connectivity-number, clique-number and
chromatic-number and the appearance of copies of a
fixed subgraph $H$.
We mainly establish upper bounds on $k_T$ (where arbitrary \kwig are shown to exhibit the property $T$) but also lower bounds (that provide specific constructions of \kwig that fail to preserve $T$).
Our precise results per each of these properties are
discussed in Section \ref{intro_list_results},
and proved in Section \ref{claims_&_proofs} (and the Appendices).
Interestingly, our results reveal a deep difference
between \kwice and almost \kwice (a$.$k$.$a$.$
$(k,\eps)$-\wicens\footnote{$(k,\eps)$-\wice means
that the joint distribution of any $k$ potential edges
is only required to be within small statistical
distance $\epsilon$ from the corresponding
distribution in the \gnp case.}).
All aforementioned graph properties are guaranteed by
\kwice (even for small $k=\poly(\log(N))$), but are
strongly violated by some almost \kwig - even when
$k=N^{\Omega(1)}$ is huge and $\eps=N^{-\Omega(1)}$ is
tiny.
For some properties of random graphs, $T$, our results
demonstrate for the first time how to efficiently
construct random-looking distributions on huge graphs
that satisfy $T$.

\SaveSizeParagraph
{Our Techniques \& Relations to Combinatorial Pseudorandomness.}
\label{intro_jumbled}

For positive results (upper bounding $k_T$), we note that the original proofs that establish properties of \gnp
graphs often fail for \kwigns. These proofs use a union
bound over $M=2^{\Theta(N)}$ undesired events, by
giving a $2^{-\Omega(N)}$ upper-bound on the
probability of each of these events.%
\footnote{For instance \wrt connectivity, $M$ is the number of choices for partitioning the vertices into 2 disconnected components.%
\ifPersonal{~For perfect matchings, $M$ counts the
number of subsets of vertices that defy a sufficient
condition for the matching (by either Hall's Theorem or
Tutte's Theorem).
For the chromatic number, $M$ is the (a-priory) number of possible sub-graphs from which a greedy coloring
algorithm might choose a large independent set that is
colored with a single color.}\fi}
Unfortunately, there exist $\poly(\log(N))$-\wig
\ifPersonal that can be constructed consuming only
$\Theta(k \log(N))$ random bits. Hence, any event that
occurs with positive probability (in these
constructions), must hold \wip $\geq 2^{-\Theta(k
\log(N))}$ which is $\gg \frac 1 M$ when $k \leq
\poly(\log(N))$. \else where any event that occurs
with positive probability, has probability $\geq
2^{-o(N)}$. \fi
Therefore, directly `de-randomizing' the original proof fails, and alternative arguments (suitable for the $k$-wise independent case) are provided.

In particular, many properties are inferred via a variant of
Thomason's notion of `jumbledness' \cite{t}
(mostly known in its weaker form as quasirandomness or
pseudorandomness, as defined by Chung, Graham \andCoAuthers Wilson
\cite{cgw}, and related to the so called Expander Mixing Lemma and the
pseudo-random properties of graphs
that follow from their spectral properties, see \cite{ac}).
For our purposes, $\alpha$-jumbledness means that (as expected in
\gnp graphs) for all vertex-sets $U,V$, the number of
edges that pass from $U$ to $V$ should be $p|U||V|
\pm \alpha \sqrt{|U||V|}$.
Jumbledness and quasirandomness had been studied extensively (see
\cite{ks} and its many references), and serve in Graph Theory as
{\em the} common notion of resemblance to random graphs. In
particular, \gnp graphs are known to exhibit (the best
possible) jumbledness parameter,
$\alpha=\Theta(\sqrt{pN})$.
One of our main results (Theorem
\ref{kwise_gives_jumbl}) demonstrates that \kwice for
$k=\Theta( \log(N))$ is stronger than jumbledness, in
the sense that it guarantees the optimal
$\alpha=\Theta(\sqrt{pN})$ even for tiny densities
$p=\Theta(\frac{\ln(N)}N)$.
Therefore, prominent properties of \kwig can be directly deduced from properties of jumbled graphs.

Proving Theorem \ref{kwise_gives_jumbl} exploits a
known connection between jumbledness and the
eigenvalues of (a shifted variant of) the adjacency
matrix of graphs, following the approach in \cite{ac}.
In particular, the analysis of Vu (\cite{vu},
extending \cite{fk2}) regarding the eigenvalues of
random graphs is strengthened, in order to achieve
optimal eigenvalues even for smaller densities $p$
than those captured by \cite{vu}. This improvement
implies, among other results, the remarkable fact that
\kwig for $k=\Theta(\log(N))$ preserve (up to constant
factors) the \gnp sufficient density for connectivity.

\SaveSizeParagraph
{More on Techniques \& Relations to Almost $k$-Wise Independence.}
\label{almost_k_wise}

For negative results (producing random-looking graphs
that defy a given property $T$ of random graphs), the
\cite{ggn,my_thesis} approach is to first construct
some random-looking graph $G$, and later to `mildly'
modify $G$ \st $T$ is defied. This is done \wrt all graph properties considered here. For instance, the
modification of choosing a random vertex and then deleting all it's edges violates connectivity while preserving computational pseudorandomness.
Unfortunately, such modifications \ifSaveSize \else are useless in our context because they \fi fail to preserve
\kwice \ifPersonal and it is typically not clear how
to modify the graph for the second time to regain \kwice \else \fi (the resulting graphs are only almost \kw independent).
In contrast, most of our negative results exploit the fact
that some constructions of \kwi bits produce
strings with significantly larger probability than in
the completely independent case. This is translated
(by the construction in Lemma
\ref{kwise_construction_unexpected_sub_graphs}) to the
unexpected appearance of some subgraphs (in \kwigns):
either huge independent-sets inside dense graphs or
fixed subgraphs inside sparse graphs.

\SaveSizeParagraph
{Comparison with Computational Pseudorandomness.}
\label{compareGGN}

Finally, \kwice guarantees all random graphs'
properties that were met by the (specific)
computationally pseudorandom graphs of
\cite{ggn,my_thesis}\ifSaveSize. \else \footnote{A
single exception is preserving the precise \gnp
upper-bound on the chromatic number only up to a
constant factor, whereas no such factors are
introduced by \cite{ggn,my_thesis}.}. \fi
\ifSaveSize In addition, only \kwice captures \else
The list of random graph properties captured by \kwice
but not by \cite{ggn,my_thesis} includes \fi (i)
arbitrary first-order properties of \gnp graphs, (ii)
high connectivity, (iii) strongest possible parameters
of jumbledness, and (iv) almost regular $(1\pm
o(1))pN$ degree for all vertices, and $(1\pm
o(1))p^2N$ co-degrees for all vertex pairs.
Importantly, all this holds for any \kwigns,  (and in
particular for the very simple and efficiently
constructable ones derived from \cite{jof,abi}),
whereas the \cite{ggn,my_thesis}'s approach requires
non-trivial modifications of the construction per each
new property.

\mysection
{Combinatorial Properties of ${\bf k}$-Wise Independent
Graphs} \label{intro_list_results}

We now survey our main results per each of the
aforementioned graph properties $T$. Typically our
arguments establish the following tradeoff: the
smaller $p$ is, the larger $k$ should be to maintain
$T$.
Given this tradeoff we highlight minimizing $k$ or, alternatively, minimizing $p$. The latter is
motivated by the fact that the \gnp threshold for
many central properties occurs at some $p^*\ll 1$.
Minimizing $p$ is subject to some reasonable choice of
$k$, which is $k\leq \poly(\log(N))$. Indeed, as the
complexity of implementing \kwig is $\poly(k
\log(N))$, we get efficient implementations whenever
$k \leq \poly(\log(N))$ even when the graphs are huge
and $N=2^{\poly(n)}$.
\footnote{Accessing the graphs via edge-queries is
adequate only when $p \geq n^{-\Theta(1)}$ - otherwise
\as no edges are detected by the $\poly(n)$ inspecting
algorithm. For smaller densities our study has thus mostly a
combinatorial flavor.}

\ifSaveSize{\vspace{-2.7mm}}\fi \mysubsection
{Connectivity, Hamiltonicity and Perfect Matchings
(see Section \ref{section_conn_Ham})}

The well known sufficient \gnp density for all these
properties is $\sim \frac {\ln(N)}N$. For
connectivity, this sufficient density is captured (up
to constant factors) by all $\log(N)$-\wigns. Even
$k=4$ suffices for larger densities $p \gg N^{-\frac 1
{2}}$.
Based on Hefetz, Krivelevich \andCoAuthers Szabo's
\cite{hks}, Hamiltonicity (and hence perfect
matchings) are guaranteed at $p\geq \frac
{\log^2(N)}{N}$ with $k\geq 4\log(N)$, and at $p \geq
N^{-\frac 1 {2}+o(1)}$ with $k\geq 4$.
On the other hand, some pair\wig are provided that
despite having constant density, are still \as
disconnected and fail to contain any perfect matching.
\ifPersonal Note that by changing $k$ to 4, and the
density to $p=1/2 + N^{-\Theta(1)}$, all properties are
ensured again (since then all the degrees are $\leq
\frac N 2$). More importantly, note that the combination
of these results immediately rule out the possibility of
establishing a general threshold phenomenon (for all
monotone properties) when $k=2$.} \fi

\ifSaveSize{\vspace{-2.7mm}}\fi \mysubsection
{High Connectivity
(see Section \ref{section_high_conn})}

The connectivity number, $\kappa(G)$, is the largest
integer, $\ell$, \st any pair of vertices is connected
in $G$ by at least $\ell$ internally vertex-disjoint
paths. Since a typical degree in a random graph is
$(1\pm o(1)) pN$, it is remarkable that \gnp graphs
achieve $\kappa = (1\pm o(1)) pN$ \asns.
Surprisingly, such optimal connectivity is guaranteed
by $\Theta(\log(N))$\wice whenever $p \geq
\Theta(\frac {\log(N)}{N})$.

\ifSaveSize{\vspace{-2.7mm}}\fi \mysubsection
{Cliques and Independent-Sets
(see Appendix \ref{appendix_indp_num})}

For $N^{-o(1)} \leq p \leq 1-N^{o(1)}$ the
independence number, $I$, of random graphs has \as
only two possible values: either $S^*$ or $S^*+1$ for
some $S^*\sim \frac {2\log(pN)}{\log(1/(1-p))}$.
This remarkable phenomenon is observed to hold by
$\Theta(\log^2(N))$-\wice whenever $p$ is
bounded away from 0.
On the other hand, \kwig are provided with $k= \Theta
\lb \frac {\log(N)}{\log \log(N)}\rb$ where $I \geq
(S^*)^{1+\Omega(1)}$ \as (for $k=\Theta(1)$, even huge
$N^{\Omega(1)}$ independent-sets may appear).
For smaller densities, random graphs \as have $I \leq
O(p^{-1} \log(N))$, while $\Theta(\log(N))$\wice gives
a weaker, yet useful, $I \leq O(\sqrt{\frac N p})$
bound whenever $p\geq \Omega (\frac{\log(N)}N)$.
By symmetry (replacing $p$ with $1-p$), analogous
results to all the above hold for the clique number as
well.
Discussing the clique- and independence-number is
deferred to the appendices since the main
relevant techniques here are demonstrated elsewhere in the paper.

\ifSaveSize{\vspace{-2.7mm}}\fi \mysubsection
{Coloring
(see Section \ref{section_color})}

For $1/N \ll p \leq 1-\Omega(1)$, the chromatic number $\chi$ of random graphs
is a.s. $(1+o(1))\frac
{N\log(1/1-p)} {2\log(pN)}$.
This \gnp lower-bound on $\chi$ is observed to hold
for any $(\log(N))^{\Theta(1)}$\wig with moderately
small densities $p\geq (\log(N))^{-\Theta(1)}$.
More surprisingly, $k=\Theta(\log(N))$ suffices to
capture a similar upper-bound (even for tiny densities
$p=c \log(N)/N$).
This upper-bound is based on Alon, Krivelevich
\andCoAuthers Sudakov's \cite{aks}, \cite{aks1} and on Johansson's
\cite{joh}.

\ifSaveSize{\vspace{-2.7mm}}\fi \mysubsection
{Thresholds for the Appearance of Subgraphs
(see Section \ref{section_sub_graphs})} \label{intro_H_copies}

For a fixed (non-empty) graph $H$, consider the
appearance of $H$-copies ({\em not necessarily} as an
induced subgraph) in either a random or a \kwi
graph.\ifPersonal\footnote{
When $H$ is empty, the question is trivial because every
graph $G$ (of sufficient order) contains $H$ copies.
This formally translates to $\rho=\infty$ and to
$p^*=0$.}\else~\fi
The \gnp threshold for the occurrence of $H$ sub-graphs
lies at $p^*_H \eqdef N^{-\rho}$, where the constant
$\rho=\rho(H)$ is the minimum, taken over all subgraphs
$H'$ of $H$ (including $H$ itself), of the ratio $\frac
{v(H')} {e(H')}$ (here, $v(H')$ and $e(H')$ respectively
denote the number of vertices and edges in $H'$).
Thus, no $H$-copies are found when ${p}\ll p^*$, while for any ${p}\gg p^*$, copies of $H$ abound (\ER \cite{erGiant}, \Bol \cite{bolsub}).
\ifPersonal
\begin{remark} The ratio $\rho$ decides the
threshold, since it is minimized for the most `dense'
subgraph $H'$. Intuitively, this $H'$ is the sub-graph
less likely to appear in a \gnp graph, so $H$-copies
\as appear iff $H'$-copies \as appear.\end{remark}

\begin{remark} Note that $\frac 1 {v-1} \leq \rho \leq
2$, where the lower bound is tight (only) for cliques,
and the upper bound is tight iff $H$ contains only
disjoint edges. As $v=v(H)$ grows, most graphs have
$e(H)=\Theta(v^2)$, so $\rho=\Theta(1/v)$.\end{remark}

\fi
For any graph $H$, this \gnp threshold holds whenever
$k\geq \Theta (v^4(H))$, but as $k$ is decreased to
$\floor{\frac 2 {\rho}}$, the \gnp threshold is defied:
much sparser graphs exist where $p \ll p^*_H$ and yet
copies of $H$ are \as found.
In particular, when $e(H)\geq \Omega(v^2(H))$,
\ifPersonal then $\rho \leq O(1/v(H))$, so \fi the
threshold violation occurs at $k= \Omega(v(H))$.
\ifPersonal Note that our negative results are optimal
in the sense that they capture all possible graphs $H$
(see footmark inside statement of Theorem
\ref{sub_graphs_defy}). The optimality of $k$ is
discussed in remark \ref{remark_rho_cond_reasonable}.
\fi

\ifSaveSize{\vspace{-2.7mm}}\fi \mysubsection
{First Order Zero-One Laws (Previous Results)}
\label{FO_paper}

\ifSaveSize Naor \etal \cite{nnt} have recently \else a recent study (joint work of the second author with Naor \andCoAuthers Tromer \cite {nnt}) \fi studied capturing arbitrary depth-$D(N)$ properties.
These are graph properties expressible by a sequence of first-order formulas $\Phi=$ $\{\phi_N\}_{N \in \mathbb N}$, with quantifier depth $\mathit{depth}(\phi_N) \leq D(N)$%
\ifSaveSize. \else
(e.g.~``having a clique of size $t(N)$" can be specified
by $\phi_N = \exists x_1 ... \exists x_{t(N)}
\bigwedge_{i \neq j} ((x_i \neq x_j) \bigwedge
\mbox{\sc edge}(x_i,x_j))$). \fi
A `threshold' depth function $D^*\sim\frac{\log(N)}{\log(1/{p})}$ was
identified \st arbitrary \kwig resemble \gnp graphs \wrt all
depth $D^*$ properties. The underlying resemblance-definition is in
fact so strong, that even \gnp graphs cannot achieve resemblance
to themselves \wrt properties of higher depth. On the other hand,
\kwig were shown to defy some \gnp properties of depth
$\Theta(\sqrt{k\log(N)}+\log(N))$.
These results are incomparable to the ones in the current paper,
since most of the graph properties studied here require larger
depth than $D^*$.
\ifPersonal\footnote{ Note that the naive recursive
formula for connectivity has depth $3 \log(N)$ but
exponential size, while Savitch's Theorem \cite{sav}
gives linear size and $5 \log(N)$ depth. On the other
hand, by a simple Ehrenfeucht-game argument, depth $2
\log(N)-\Theta(1)$ is insufficient for connectivity.
For optimal Ramsey graphs depth $2 \log(N)$ suffices,
which is again tight by some trivial Ehrenfeucht-game
argument.}
Thus, a more direct approach is needed to establish such
properties for \kwigns.\footnote{Note that, in addition,
direct proofs may reduce the amount of independence $k$
required. For instance for appearance of subgraphs of
order $v$, then $k=\Theta(v^4)$ suffices instead of $k
\sim \frac{\log^3 N}{\log^2(1/p)}$.}\fi

\mysection{Preliminaries
\paragraph{Asymptotics.}
Invariably, $k: \N \into \N$, while
$p,\eps,\delta,\gamma,\Delta: \N \into (0,1)$. We
often use $k,p,\eps,\delta,\gamma,\Delta$ instead of
$k(N),p(N),\eps(N),\delta(N),\gamma(N),\Delta(N)$.
Asymptotics are taken as $N \rightarrow \infty$, and
some inequalities hold only for sufficiently large
$N$. The $\floor{\cdot}$ and $\ceil{\cdot}$ operators
are ignored whenever insignificant for the asymptotic
results. Constants $c,\bar c$ are not optimized in
expressions of the form $k=c\log(N)$ or
$p=(\log(N))^{\bar c}/N^{\Delta}$, whereas the
constant $\Delta$ is typically optimized.

\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph{Subgraphs.}
For a graph $H$, let $v(H)$ and $e(H)$ denote the number
of vertices and edges in $H$. For vertex sets $U,V$ let
$e(U,V)$ denote the number of edges that pass from $U$ to
$V$ (if $S=U \bigcap V \neq \emptyset$, then any
internal edge of $S$ is counted twice). Similarly, we
let $e(U)=e(U,U)$.

\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph{Random and ${\bf k}$-Wise
Independent Graphs.}
Throughout, graphs are simple, labeled and undirected.
Given $N,k,p$ as above then $\gnknm$~ (or $\gnkm$~ for short)
denotes some distribution over the set of graphs with
vertex set $\{1,...,N\}$, where each edge appears
w.p.~$p(N)$, and the random variables that indicate the
appearance of any $k(N)$ potential edges are mutually
independent. We use the term `\kwigns' for a sequence of
distributions \ens{\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)} indexed by $N$.

\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph{Almost Sure Graph Properties.}
A graph property $T$, is any property closed under
graph isomorphism. We say that `$T$ holds a.s.~(almost
surely) for $\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)$' or that (abused notation) `$T$
holds for $\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)$' whenever $\Pr_{\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)}[T]$ {}
$\stackrel {N \into \infty} {\longrightarrow} 1$. Similar terminology is used for \gnp graphs.

\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph{Monotonicity in $(\bf{k,p})$.}
Since $\bar k$-\wice implies $k$-\wice for all $\bar k >
k$ we may state claims for arbitrary $k\geq k'$ but
prove them only for $k=k'$.
When establishing monotone increasing properties we
often state claims for arbitrary $p\geq p'$ but prove
them only for $p=p'$.
The latter is valid since for any $N,k,p>p'$, the
process of sampling from any (independent) $\mathcal G^k(N,p)$,
$\mathcal G^k(N,p'/p)$ distributions and defining the
final graph with edge-set being the intersection of the
edge-sets of the two sampled graphs, clearly results in a $\mathcal G^k(N,p')$ distribution.
\ifPersonal Assuming that $k=k',p=p'$ is used only to
ensure the $\frac {M-k}k \mu(1-\mu) \geq 1$ condition in
Lemma \ref{kwise_Chebyshev_bound} (the $k \leq \frac N
3$ condition holds anyway, whenever the Lemma is
meaningful).
Finally, lower-bounds on $p$ are often provided only for
sake of clarity (these lower-bounds are redundant as
they follow immediately from the companion bounds on
$\eps$ or $\gamma$).\fi

\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph{${\bf k}$-Wise Independent
Random Variables.}
The term `$(M,k,p)$-variables' stands for any $M$
binary variables that are $k$-wise independent with
each variable having probability $p$ of attaining
value 1. Lemma \ref{modify_JoffeCG_lem} (proved in
Section \ref{modify_JoffeCG_sec}) adjusts the known
construction of discrete \kwv of \cite{jof},\cite{cg}, \cite{abi} to
provide $(M,k,p)$-variables that induce some
predetermined values with relatively high
probability. Throughout, $e_1$ and $e_0$ resp.~denote
the number of edges and non-edges in a graph $H$.

\blem \label{modify_JoffeCG_lem} Given $0<p<1$ with
binary representation $p=0.b_1...b_{\ell}$, and
natural numbers $e_0,e_1,M$ satisfying $e_0+e_1\leq
M$, let $F= \max \{2^{\ceil{\log_2M}},2^{\ell}\}$.
Then there exists $(M,k,p)$-variables \st
$\Pr[A]=F^{-k}$, where $A$ denotes the event that the
first $e_0$ variables receive value 0 while the next
$e_1$ variables receive value 1. \elem

\SaveaMoreSizeParagraph{Tail Bounds for ${\bf k}$-Wise
Independent Random Variables.}
The following strengthened version of standard tail
bounds (proved in Section \ref{sec_inequal})
translates into smaller densities $p$ for which
monotone graph properties are established for \kwigns.

\blem \label{kwise_Chebyshev_bound} Let $X=\sum_{j=1}^M
X_{j}$ be the sum of \kwi binary variables where
$\Pr[X_j=1]=\mu$ holds for all $j$. Let $\delta > 0$,
and let $k$ be even \st $\frac {M-k}k \mu(1-\mu) \geq
1$. Then
$$\Pr[|X-\mathbb E(X)| \geq \delta \mathbb E(X)] \leq
\left [\frac {2k(1-\mu)} {\delta^2 \mu M}\right] ^{\fktb}.$$
\elem

\mysection{The properties of ${\bf k}$-wise
independent graphs} \label{claims_&_proofs}
\mysubsection{Degrees, Co-Degrees and Jumbledness}
\ifPersonal For future purposes, we first establish some
fundamental random graphs' properties, such as having
almost regular degrees and co-degrees as well as
achieving strong jumbledness.\fi

\ble{Achieving almost regular degrees}
\label{kwise_gives_deg}
In all \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  it \as holds that all vertices have degree~~$p(N-1)(1 \pm \eps)$ whenever $N \big[\frac {3k} {\eps^2
pN}\big]^{\floor{k/2}} \longrightarrow 0,$ and in
particular when either \ben
\item
$k\geq 4$,~$N^{-1/2} \ll p \leq 1-\frac 5 N$, and $1 \geq \eps \gg p^{-1/2}N^{-1/4};$~~or
\item
$k\geq 4\log(N)$,~$\frac{25\log(N)}{N} \leq p \leq
1-\frac {5 \log(N)} N$, and $1 \geq \eps \geq
\sqrt{\frac{25\log(N)}{p N}}.$ \een \ele
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Fix a vertex $v$, and let $X_w$ be
the random variable that indicates the appearance of the
edge $\{v,w\}$ in the graph. Thus, the degree of $v$ is
$X=\sum_{w\neq v}X_w$. Since $X$ is the sum of
$(N-1,k,p)$-variables, Lemma \ref{kwise_Chebyshev_bound}
implies that the probability that $v$ has an unexpected
degree $X \neq p(N-1)(1\pm\eps)$ is bounded by
$\big[\frac {3k} {\eps^2 pN}\big]^{\floor{k/2}}.$
Applying a union-bound over the $N$ possible vertices
$v$, gives that the probability of having {\em some}
vertex with unexpected degree is bounded by $N
\big[\frac {3k} {\eps^2 pN}\big]^{\floor{k/2}},$ which
vanishes for the parameters in items 1 and 2. \qed

\ble{Achieving almost regular
co-degrees} \label{kwise_gives_codeg}
In all \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  it \as holds that all vertex pairs
have co-degree~~$p^2(N-2)(1\pm \gamma)$ whenever
either \ben
\item
$k\geq 12$,~$N^{-\frac 1 6} \ll p \leq 1-\frac {13} N$, and $1 \geq \gamma \gg p^{-1} N^{-\frac 1 6};$~~or
\item
$k\geq 12\log(N)$,~$\sqrt{\frac{73 \log(N)}{N}} \leq p
\leq 1-\frac {13 \log(N)} N$~~and~~$1 \geq \gamma \geq
\sqrt{\frac {73 \log(N)} {p^2N}}.$ \een \ele
\ifPersonal{%
\noindent{\bf Proof.} We prove item 1 for $k=12$, item
2 for $k=12\log(N)$ and item 3 for $k=4$. The claim
follows for $\bar k > k$, since $\bar k$-\wice implies
$k$-\wicens.
Fix a vertex pair $\{u,v\}$, and let $X_w$ be the random variable indicating the appearance of both edges $\{u,w\}$, $\{v,w\}$ in the graph. Thus the co-degree of $\{u,v\}$ is $X=\sum_{w\neq u,v}X_w$. %
Now $X$ is the sum of $N-2$ binary variables that are
$\lb k/2 \rb$-wise independent and each has probability
of success $p^2$. Thus, Lemma
\ref{kwise_Chebyshev_bound} combined with a union-bound
over the $\binom N 2 $ possible vertex pairs $\{u,v\}$,
ensures that the probability that there exist {\em some}
vertex-pair with unexpected co-degree $X \neq
p^2(N-2)(1\pm\gamma)$ is bounded by $\binom N 2 \left
[\frac {3k} {\gamma^2 p^2N}\right]^{\frac k 4}.$
Clearly, the latter expression vanishes for our choice
of parameters. \qed
\else \noindent{\bf Proof.} The proof is completely
analogous to that of Lemma \ref{kwise_gives_deg}. Here the
union-bound is over all $\binom N 2 $ vertex pairs
$\{u,v\}$, and the co-degree of each $\{u,v\}$ is the
sum of $(N-2, \floor {\frac k 2}, p^2)$-variables. \qed
\fi

The following definition is a modified version of the one in
\cite{t,cgw}, see also \cite{ac} and \cite{as}, Chapter 9.

\bdf {Jumbledness} \label{def_jumbl}
For vertex sets $U,V$, let $e(U,V)$ denote the number of edges that
pass from $U$ to $V$ (internal edges of $U \bigcap V$
are counted twice). A graph is $(p,\alpha)$-jumbled if
$e(U,V)=p |U||V| \pm \alpha \sqrt{|U||V|}$ holds for all
$U,V$. \edf

\btn{Achieving optimal jumbledness}
\label{kwise_gives_jumbl} There exist absolute
constants $c_1,c_2,c_3$ \st all \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  are \as
$(p,\alpha)$-jumbled whenever either:
\ben
\item
$k\geq 4$, $p\geq \Omega(\frac {1}{N})$~~and~~$\alpha
\gg \sqrt{p}N^{3/4}$;~~or
\item
$k\geq \log(N)$, $\frac {c_1 \log(N)}{N} \leq p \leq
1- \frac {c_2 \log^4(N)}{N}$~~and~~$\alpha \geq c_3
\sqrt{pN}.$ \een \etn
\noindent{\bf Proof.} The proof is based on spectral techniques
and combines some refined versions of ideas  from \cite{ac}, \cite{fk2}
and \cite{vu}, using the fact that  traces of the $k$-th power of the
adjacency matrix of a graph are identical in the $k$-wise independent case
and in the totally random one. The details are somewhat lengthy and
are thus deferred to Appendix \ref{proof_kwise_gives_jumbl}.

\mysubsection{Connectivity, Hamiltonicity and Perfect
Matchings}\label{section_conn_Ham}

\btn{Achieving connectivity}
\label{kwise_gives_conn}
There exists a constant $c$ \st the following holds. All \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  are \as
connected whenever either:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$k\geq 4$~~and~~$p \gg \frac {1}{\sqrt{N}}$;~~or
\item
$k\geq 4\log(N)$~~and~~$p\geq \frac {c\ln(N)}{N}$.
\end{itemize}
\etn
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Let $U$ be a vertex-set that
induces a connected component. Connectivity follows from
having $|U|>0.5N$ for all such $U$. The following holds
\as for $\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)$. By Lemma \ref{kwise_gives_deg}, all
vertices have degree $\geq 0.9pN$, so $e(U) \geq
0.9pN|U|$. By Theorem \ref{kwise_gives_jumbl}, all sets
$U$ satisfy $e(U)\leq p|U|^2 + \alpha|U|$ with $\alpha=
O(\sqrt{pN})= o(pN)$. Re-arranging gives $(0.9-o(1))N
\leq |U|$. \qed

\btn{Achieving Hamiltonicity}
\label{kwise_gives_Ham}
All \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  are \as Hamiltonian (and for even $N$ contain a perfect matching) whenever either:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$k\geq 4$~~and~~$p \geq \frac {\log^2(N)} {\sqrt
N}$;~~or
\item
$k\geq 4\log(N)$~~and~~$p\geq \frac {\log^2(N)}{N}$.
\end{itemize}
\etn
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Let $\bar \Gamma(V)$ denote the
set of vertices $v \notin V$ that are adjacent to some
vertex in the vertex-set $V$. By Theorem 1.1 in
Hefetz, Krivelevich \andCoAuthers Szabo's \cite{hks},
Hamiltonicity follows from the existence of constants $b,c$
such that \as
(i) $|\bar \Gamma(V)|\geq 12 |V|$ holds for all sets
$V$ of size $\leq b N$, and (ii) $e(U,V)\geq 1$ holds
for all disjoint sets $U,V$ of size $\frac {c
N}{\log(N)}$. We remark that (unlike other asymptotic
arguments in this paper), the sufficiency of (i) and
(ii) might hold only for very large $N$.
For (i), let $b= \frac 1 {170}$ and consider an
arbitrary set $V$. By Theorem \ref{kwise_gives_jumbl},
\as all vertex-sets $T$ have $e(T) \leq p|T|^2 +
o(pN)|T|$. By Lemma \ref{kwise_gives_deg} \as all the
degrees are $\opmo pN$, so exactly $\opmo pN|V|$ edges
touch $V$ (where internal edges are counted twice).
Let $T=V \bigcup \bar \Gamma(V)$, and assume that $|\bar
\Gamma(V)| < 12|V|$. We get $\omo pN|V| \leq e(T) \leq p
(13|V|)^2 + o(pN)|V|$. Re-arranging gives $|V| > \frac N
{170}$. Condition (i) follows.
For (ii), by Theorem \ref{kwise_gives_jumbl}, \as all
(equal-sized and disjoint) vertex-sets $U,V$ have
$e(U,V) \geq p|U||V| - O(\sqrt{pN})|U|$. If there is
no edge between $U$ and $V$, then $e(U,V)=0$.
Re-arranging gives $|U|\leq O(\sqrt{N/p}) \leq O(\frac
N{\log(N)})$. Condition (ii) follows. \qed

\btn {Failing to preserve connectivity}\label{kwise_gives_Ham} There exist
pair-wise independent graphs \ens{\gnkm} \\
where $p=1/2$, that are (i) \as disconnected
(and contain no Hamiltonian cycles), and that (ii)
contain no perfect matchings \wip  $1$. \etn
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Consider the graphs defined by
partitioning all vertices into 2 disjoint sets
$V_0,V_1$ where each $V_j$ induces a clique, no edges
connect $V_0$ to $V_1$, and $V_1$ is chosen randomly and uniformly among
all subsets of odd cardinality  of the vertex set. Note that for every
set of $4$ vertices, there are $16$ ways to split its vertices among $V_0$
and $V_1$, and it is not difficult
to check that if $N \geq 5$, then each of these $16$ possibilities
is equally likely.
Therefore, any edge appears w.p.~$\frac 1 2$, and any pair
of edges (whether they share a common vertex or not)
appears w.p.~$\frac 1 4$. Still the graph is connected
iff all the vertices belong to the same $V_j$ which
happens only w.p.~$2^{-N+1}$ (and only if $N$ is odd).  Since
$|V_1|$ is odd, the graph contains no perfect matching.
\qed
\ifPersonal %
Note that these graphs are not 3-wise independent, as
the existence of the edges $\{u,v\}$ and $\{v,w\}$
implies the existence of the edge $\{u,w\}$. Also note
that this construction cannot be generalized for $p \neq
\frac 1 2$ (by assigning vertices w.p.~$q$ to $V_0$ and
w.p.~$1-q$ to $V_1$). Indeed, consider the requirements
(i) $p=q^2+(1-q)^2$ and (ii) $p^2=q^3+(1-q)^3$. If we
plug (i) into (ii) we get an equation of degree 4 that
by Vieta's formula has only 3 solutions $p=0,\frac 1
2,1$ (see
\url{http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/VietasFormula.html}).

We also remark that when $p$ is slightly increased to
$1/2 + N^{-\Theta(1)}$, then 4-\wice {\em does} suffice
for achieving connectivity since then all vertices \as
have degree $> N/2$. Then, by Dirac's Theorem, the
graphs are in fact Hamiltonian. \else

Note that when $p$ is slightly increased to $1/2 +
N^{-\Theta(1)}$, then 4-\wice suffices for achieving
Hamiltonicity (via Dirac's Theorem), because then \as
all vertices have degree $> N/2$.
\fi%

\mysubsection{High-connectivity}
\label{section_high_conn}
\btn{Achieving optimal connectivity}
\label{kwise_gives_kappa_jumbl}
There exists an absolute constant $c$, \st for all
\kwig \ens{\gnkm}  the connectivity number is \as $\opmo pN$
when either
\begin{itemize}
\item
$k\geq 4$~~and~~$p \gg N^{-\frac 1 {3}}$;~~or
\item
$k\geq \log(N)$~~and~~$p \geq c \frac{\log(N)}{N}$.
\end{itemize}
\etn
\noindent{\bf Proof.}
The connectivity is certainly not larger than $(1+o(1))pN$, as it
is upper-bounded by the minimum degree.
By Theorem 2.5 in Thomason's \cite{t} $\kappa \geq d-
\alpha/p$ holds for any $(p,\alpha)$-jumbled graph with
minimal degree $\geq d$. Thus, achieving $\kappa \gtrsim
pN$, reduces to obtaining (i) $d = (1\pm o(1))pN$, and
(ii) $\alpha \ll pd$.
Condition (i) \as holds by Lemma \ref{kwise_gives_deg}.
By Theorem \ref{kwise_gives_jumbl}, we \as achieve
$(c_3\sqrt{pN})$-jumbledness for some constant $c_3$,
so condition (ii) becomes $p^2N \gg \sqrt{pN}$. This
proves the first part of the theorem. To prove the
second we note, first, that we may assume that $p \ll
1$ (since otherwise $4$-wise independence suffices).
Let $S$ be a smallest separating set of vertices,
assume that $|S|$ is smaller than $(1-o(1))pN$, let
$U$ be the smallest connected component of $G-S$ and
let $W$ be the set of all vertices but those in $U
\cup S$. Clearly $|W| \geq (\frac{1}{2}-o(1))N$. Note
that $e(U,W)=0$, but by jumbledness $e(U,W) \geq
p|U||W| -c_3 \sqrt {pN |U||W|}$. This implies, using
the fact that $|W|>N/3$, that $|U| \leq
\frac{3c_3^2}{p}$. Using jumbledness again, $e(U,S)
\leq p|U||S|+c_3 \sqrt {pN |U||S|}$ but as all degrees
are at least $(1-o(1))pN$, $e(U,S) \geq
(1-o(1))pN|S|-e(U) \geq (1-o(1))pN|U|-p|U|^2- c_3
\sqrt {pN} |U| \geq |U| (1-o(1))pN$, where here we
used the fact that $|U| \leq O(1/p)$ and that
$\sqrt{pN} =o(pN)$. This implies that either $p|U||S|
\geq \frac{1}{2}|U|pN$, implying that $|S| \geq N/2
\gg pN$, as needed, or $c_3 \sqrt {pN|U||S|}  \geq
\frac{1}{3}|U|pN$, implying that $|S| \geq
\frac{1}{9c_3^2} |U| pN$ which is bigger than $pN$
provided $|U| \geq 9c_3^2$. However, if $|U|$ is
smaller, then surely $|S| \geq (1-o(1))pN$, since all
degrees are at least $(1-o(1))pN$ and every vertex in
$U$ has all its neighbors in $U \cup S$.
\qed

\mysubsection{Thresholds for the Appearance of
Subgraphs}\label{section_sub_graphs}

For a fixed non-empty graph $H$, let $\rho(H)$ and
$p^*_H$ be as in Section \ref{intro_H_copies}.

\bob {Preserving the threshold for appearance of
sub-graphs} \label{kwise_gives_subgraph_threshold}
There exists a function $D(v)=\opmo \frac {v^4}{16}$
\st for any graph $H$ with at most $v$ vertices, and
for all \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  $ $ with $k \geq D(v)$ the
following holds. Let $A$ denote the event that $H$
appears in $\gnkm$~ (not necessarily as an induced
sub-graph). Then
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $p(N) \ll p^*_H(N)$ then $(\neg A)$ \as holds.
\item
If $p(N) \gg p^*_H(N)$ then $A$ \as holds.
\end{itemize} \eob
\noindent{\bf Proof.}
The proof (given in Appendix
\ref{kwise_gives_subgraph_thresholdPrf}) applies
Rucinski \andCoAuthers Vince's \cite{rv} to derive a
lower-bound on the minimal $k$ sufficient for the
original \gnp argument to hold. \qed

\btn {Defying the threshold for appearance of sub-graphs}\label{sub_graphs_defy}
For any (fixed) graph $H$ that satisfies%
\footnote{This condition rules out only graphs $H$ that
are a collection of disjoint edges. For such graphs
$\rho(H)=2$, so clearly no $H$-copies can be produced
(even if $k=1$) when $p(N) \ll p^*_H(N)= N^{-2}$.}
$\rho(H)<2$, there exists \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  where
$k=\ceil{\frac 2 {\rho(H)} -1}$ and $p(N) \ll p^*_H(N)$
\st $H$ \as appears in $\gnkm$~ as an induced sub-graph.
\etn

\ifPersonal
\begin{remark}
The term $\ceil{\frac 2 {\rho(H)} -1}$ is merely the
minimal $k$ \st $k \gneq \frac 2 {\rho}$ (verified by
separately checking for either integer or non integer
$\frac 2 {\rho}$).\end{remark}

\begin{remark} \label{remark_rho_cond_reasonable}
Note that whenever $\rho \lneq 2$, we have
$\ceil{\frac 2 {\rho(H)} -1} \geq 1$, so the condition
on $k$ is reasonable.\end{remark}
\fi

\noindent{\bf Proof.} Theorem \ref{sub_graphs_defy}
relies on Lemma
\ref{kwise_construction_unexpected_sub_graphs}. This
lemma considers the appearance of the sub-graph $H_N$ in
$\gnkm$~ where $\ensm{H_N}$ is any sequence of graphs
(possibly) with unbounded order.

\ble {\kwig with unexpected appearance of sub-graphs}
\label{kwise_construction_unexpected_sub_graphs}
Let $\ensm{H_N}$ be a sequence of graphs where $H_N$ has
exactly $S(N) < \sqrt N$ vertices, $e_1(N)$ edges and
$e_0(N)$ none-edges. Assume that for each $N$ there
exists $(\binom {S(N)} 2,k(N),p(N))$-variables \st with
probability $\Delta(N) \gg (S(N)/N)^2$ it holds that
the first $e_0(N)$  variables attain value $0$
and the next $e_1(N)$ variables attain value
$1$. Then there exist \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  that \as contain
$H_N$-copies as induced sub-graphs. \ele
\noindent{\bf Proof (Lemma
\ref{kwise_construction_unexpected_sub_graphs}).} Fix
$N$, so $H=H_N, S=S(N), e_i=e_i(N), k=k(N), p=p(N),
\Delta=\Delta(N).$ We construct graphs $\gnkm$~ that \as
contain $H$ copies. Given the $N$ vertices,
let $\{V_j\}_{j=1}^M$ be any maximal collection of {\em
edge-disjoint} vertex-sets, each of size $|V_j|=S$.
For each $j$, decide the internal edges of $V_j$ by some $(\binom S 2,k,p)$-variables \st $H$ is induced by $V_j$ with probability $\Delta$. This can be done by appropriately defining which specific edge in $V_j$ is decided by which specific variable.
Critically, the constructions for distinct sets $V_j$
are totally independent. The $R=\binom N 2 - M\binom S
2$ remaining edges
can be decided by any $(R,k,p)$-variables. The
resulting graph is clearly \kwins.

The main point is that (i) the events of avoiding
$H$-copies on the various sets $V_j$ are totally
independent (by the edge-disjointness of the $V_j$-s),
and that (ii) in our \kw case $\Delta$ is rather large
(compared with the totally independent case). Thus,
avoiding $H$-copies on {\em any} of the $V_j$-s is
unlikely.
Indeed, let $B$ denote the event that no $H$-copies appear in the resulting graph, while $B'$ only denotes the event that none of the $V_j$-s induces $H$.
By Wilson's \cite{wil} and Kuzjurin's \cite{kuz} we have $M= \Theta(N^2/S^2)$\ifPersonal~(which is obviously optimal), \else, \fi so

$$\pr{B} \leq \pr{B'}
= (1-\Delta)^{M} \leq
e^{-\Theta\lb\frac {\Delta N^2}{S^2}\rb},$$
which vanishes by our requirement that
$\Delta \gg (S/N)^2.$ %
\qed %
~(Lemma \ref{kwise_construction_unexpected_sub_graphs})

\noindent{\bf Completing the proof of Theorem
\ref{sub_graphs_defy}}.
For $v=v(H), \rho=\rho(H), p^*=p^*_H$,
and some $1 \ll f(N)\leq N^{o(1)}$, define $p$ \st $p^{-1}$ is the minimal power of 2 that is larger than, $\frac {f(N)}{p^*}$. As desired $p \ll p^*$.
Let $e_1$ and $e_0$ respectively denote the number of edges and non-edges in $H$.
With $M=\binom v 2$ and $F=1/p$, we apply Lemma \ref{modify_JoffeCG_lem} to produce $(M,k,p)$-variables
\st \wip $\geq F^{-k}$ the first $e_0$ variables have value 0, and the remaining $e_1$ variables have value 1.
By Lemma \ref{kwise_construction_unexpected_sub_graphs}, the latter immediately implies the existence of \kwig that \as contain $H$-copies as long as $F^{k} \ll (N/v)^2$. As $F=1/p=N^{\rho+o(1)}$, this $\ll$ requirement translates to $k\rho \lneq 2$. \qed
~(Theorem \ref{sub_graphs_defy})

\mysubsection{The Chromatic Number}\label{section_color}

\bob {Preserving the chromatic-number lower bound}
\label{chi_lo_bound} For any $c>0$ there exists some
$d>0$, \st all \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  with $(\log(N))^{-c} \leq
p \leq 1 -N^{-o(1)}$ and $k \geq d (\log(N))^{c+1}$
\as have chromatic number $\chi \geq \frac
{N\log(1/1-p)} {2\log(pN)}$. \eob

\ifPersonal
\noindent{\bf Proof.} Let $I(G)$ denote the independence
number of (a single) $N$-vertex graph $G$, so
$\chi(G) \geq \frac N {I(G)}$.
Whenever $k \geq \Theta \lb (\frac 1 p \log(pN))^2
\rb$ our \kwice upper-bound on I (observation
\ref{kwise_gives_exact_indp_num}) shows that \as
$I(\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)) \leq \frac {2\log(pN)}{\log(1/1-p)}= O\lb
\frac 1 p \log(pN) \rb$ (the $=O(\cdot)$ applies
$\log(1/1-p) \stackrel {p \rightarrow
0}{\longrightarrow} p$),
so $\chi(\mathcal G^{k}(N,p)) \geq \Omega \lb \frac
{pN}{\log(pN)}\rb$. \qed \else \noindent{\bf Proof.}
Let $I(G)$ denote the independence number of (a
single) $N$-vertex graph $G$. Clearly, $\chi(G) \geq
\frac N {I(G)}$, so observation \ref{chi_lo_bound}
follows from our \kwice upper-bound on I (observation
\ref{kwise_gives_exact_indp_num}). \qed \fi

\btn {Preserving the chromatic-number upper bound}
\label{chi_up_bound} There exists an absolute constant
$c$ \st the following holds. All \kwig \ens{\gnkm}  with $p
\leq 1/2$ \as have chromatic number $\chi \leq \frac
{cN\log(1/1-p)} {\log(pN)}$, whenever either: \ben
\item
$k\geq 12$~and~$p \geq N^{-\frac 1 {75}}$;~~or
\item
$k\geq \log(N)$~and~$p \geq c \frac {\log(N)}{N}$.\een
\etn

\noindent {\bf Remark.} No special effort was made to
optimize the constants $\frac 1 2$ and $\frac 1 {75}$.

\noindent{\bf Proof (sketch).} Since $p$ is bounded from above
and $\log(1/1-p) \stackrel {p \rightarrow 0} {
\longrightarrow} p/\ln(2)$, it suffices to show that
\as $\chi \leq  O ( \frac {pN} {\log(pN)} )$.
Item 1 is based on Alon, Krivelevich \andCoAuthers
Sudakov's \cite{aks}.
Specifically, choose $\delta=1/25$, \st by item 1 in
Lemma \ref{kwise_gives_deg} (with $\eps=(\log(N))
p^{-1/2} N^{-3/8}$) and by item 1 in Lemma
\ref{kwise_gives_codeg} (with $\gamma= (\log(N))
p^{-1} N^{-1/6}$), \as all the degrees are lower
bounded by $pN(1- p^{-1/2} N^{-3/8+o(1)}) \geq pN-
N^{1-4\delta},$ and all co-degrees are upper bounded
by $p^2N (1+ p^{-1} N^{-1/6+o(1)}) \leq p^2N-
N^{1-4\delta}.$
By Theorem 1.2 in \cite{aks}, these conditions (with
$\delta <1/4$ and $p\geq N^{-\frac {\delta}{3}}$)
imply that $\chi \leq \frac {4pN}{\delta \ln N} \leq
O(\frac{pN}{\log(pN)}).$

Item 2 follows from jumbledness and the main result of
\cite{aks1} (which is based on \cite{joh}), by which
any graph with maximum degree $d$ in which every
neighborhood of a vertex contains at most
$d^{2-\beta}$ edges (for some constant $\beta$) has
chromatic number $\chi \leq O(\frac d {\log d})$. \qed

\paragraph{\Large Acknowledgements}
The second author wishes to thank Oded Goldreich for
his encouragement, and Ori Gurel-Gurevich, Chandan
Kumar Dubey, Ronen Gradwohl, Moni Naor, Eran Ofek, Ron
Peled, and Ariel Yadin for useful discussions.

k-Wise Independent Random Graphs