You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Simple tabulation dates back to Zobrist in 1970 who used it for game playing programs. Keys are viewed as consisting of c characters from some alphabet Φ. We initialize c tables h0, ... , hc-1 mapping characters to random hash values. A key x = (x0, ... , xc-1) is hashed to h0[x0]⊕· · ·⊕hc-1[xc-1], where ⊕ denotes bit-wise exclusive-or. The scheme is extremely fast when the character hash tables hi are in cache. Simple tabulation hashing is not even 4-independent, but we show here that if we apply it twice, then we do get high independence. First we hash to some intermediate keys that are 6 times longer than the original keys, and then we hash the intermediate keys to the final hash values. The intermediate keys have d = 6c characters from Φ. We can then view the hash function as a highly unbalanced bipartite graph with keys on one side, each with edges to d output characters on the other side. We show that this graph has nice expansion properties, and from that it follows that if we perform another level of simple tabulation on the intermediate keys, then the composition is a highly independent hash function. More precisely, the independence we get is |Φ|Ω(1 c). In our O-notation, we view both |Φ| and c is going to infinity, but with c much smaller than |Φ|. Our space is O(c|Φ|) and the hash function is evaluated in O(c) time. Siegel [FOCS'89, SICOMP'04] has proved that with this space, if the hash function is evaluated in o(c) time, then the independence can only be o(c), so our evaluation time is best possible for Ω(c) independence-our independence is much higher if c = |Φ|o(1 c). Siegel used O(c)c evaluation time to get the same independence with similar space. Siegel's main focus was c = O(1), but we are exponentially faster when c = ω(1). Applying our scheme recursively, we can increase our independence to |Φ|Ω(1) with o(clogc) evaluation time. Compared with Siegel's scheme this is both faster and higher independence. Siegel states about his scheme that it is “far too slow for any practical application”. Our scheme is trivial to implement, and it does provide realistic implementations of 100-independent hashing for, say, 32-bit and 64-bit keys.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We introduce a new tabulation-based hashing scheme called "twisted tabulation". It is essentially as simple and fast as simple tabulation, but has some powerful distributional properties illustrating its promise: (1) If we sample keys with arbitrary probabilities, then with high probability, the number of samples inside any subset is concentrated exponentially. With bounded independence we only get polynomial concentration, and with simple tabulation, we have no good bound even in the basic case of tossing an (unbiased) coin for each key. (2) With classic hash tables such as linear probing and collision-chaining, a window of B operations takes O(B) time with high probability, for B = Ω(lg n). Good amortized performance over any window of size B is equivalent to guaranteed throughput for an on-line system processing a stream via a buffer of size B (e.g., Internet routers).
We note that the twisted tabulation in [1] has a similar flavor to the above schemes, but it does not yield independence above 3. The main target of [1] is to get strong Chernoff style bounds.