Results 1  10
of
35
Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems
 In Proc. 33rd Ann. IEEE Symp. on Found. of Comp. Sci
, 1992
"... We show that every language in NP has a probablistic verifier that checks membership proofs for it using logarithmic number of random bits and by examining a constant number of bits in the proof. If a string is in the language, then there exists a proof such that the verifier accepts with probabilit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 718 (45 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that every language in NP has a probablistic verifier that checks membership proofs for it using logarithmic number of random bits and by examining a constant number of bits in the proof. If a string is in the language, then there exists a proof such that the verifier accepts with probability 1 (i.e., for every choice of its random string). For strings not in the language, the verifier rejects every provided “proof " with probability at least 1/2. Our result builds upon and improves a recent result of Arora and Safra [6] whose verifiers examine a nonconstant number of bits in the proof (though this number is a very slowly growing function of the input length). As a consequence we prove that no MAX SNPhard problem has a polynomial time approximation scheme, unless NP=P. The class MAX SNP was defined by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis [82] and hard problems for this class include vertex cover, maximum satisfiability, maximum cut, metric TSP, Steiner trees and shortest superstring. We also improve upon the clique hardness results of Feige, Goldwasser, Lovász, Safra and Szegedy [42], and Arora and Safra [6] and shows that there exists a positive ɛ such that approximating the maximum clique size in an Nvertex graph to within a factor of N ɛ is NPhard. 1
Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP
 Journal of the ACM
, 1998
"... Abstract. We give a new characterization of NP: the class NP contains exactly those languages L for which membership proofs (a proof that an input x is in L) can be verified probabilistically in polynomial time using logarithmic number of random bits and by reading sublogarithmic number of bits from ..."
Abstract

Cited by 365 (28 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We give a new characterization of NP: the class NP contains exactly those languages L for which membership proofs (a proof that an input x is in L) can be verified probabilistically in polynomial time using logarithmic number of random bits and by reading sublogarithmic number of bits from the proof. We discuss implications of this characterization; specifically, we show that approximating Clique and Independent Set, even in a very weak sense, is NPhard.
A Parallel Repetition Theorem
 SIAM Journal on Computing
, 1998
"... We show that a parallel repetition of any twoprover oneround proof system (MIP(2, 1)) decreases the probability of error at an exponential rate. No constructive bound was previously known. The constant in the exponent (in our analysis) depends only on the original probability of error and on the t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 324 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that a parallel repetition of any twoprover oneround proof system (MIP(2, 1)) decreases the probability of error at an exponential rate. No constructive bound was previously known. The constant in the exponent (in our analysis) depends only on the original probability of error and on the total number of possible answers of the two provers. The dependency on the total number of possible answers is logarithmic, which was recently proved to be almost the best possible [U. Feige and O. Verbitsky, Proc. 11th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996, pp. 7076].
A SubConstant ErrorProbability LowDegree Test, and a SubConstant ErrorProbability PCP Characterization of NP
 IN PROC. 29TH ACM SYMP. ON THEORY OF COMPUTING, 475484. EL PASO
, 1997
"... We introduce a new lowdegreetest, one that uses the restriction of lowdegree polynomials to planes (i.e., affine subspaces of dimension 2), rather than the restriction to lines (i.e., affine subspaces of dimension 1). We prove the new test to be of a very small errorprobability (in particular, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 281 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a new lowdegreetest, one that uses the restriction of lowdegree polynomials to planes (i.e., affine subspaces of dimension 2), rather than the restriction to lines (i.e., affine subspaces of dimension 1). We prove the new test to be of a very small errorprobability (in particular, much smaller than constant). The new test enables us to prove a lowerror characterization of NP in terms of PCP. Specifically, our theorem states that, for any given ffl ? 0, membership in any NP language can be verified with O(1) accesses, each reading logarithmic number of bits, and such that the errorprobability is 2 \Gamma log 1\Gammaffl n . Our results are in fact stronger, as stated below. One application of the new characterization of NP is that approximating SETCOVER to within a logarithmic factors is NPhard. Previous analysis for lowdegreetests, as well as previous characterizations of NP in terms of PCP, have managed to achieve, with constant number of accesses, error...
On the Power of MultiProver Interactive Protocols
 Theoretical Computer Science
, 1988
"... this paper we consider a further generalization of the proof system model, due to BenOr, Goldwasser, Kilian and Wigderson [6], where instead of a single prover there may be many. This apparently gives the model additional power. The intuition for this may be seen by considering the case of two crim ..."
Abstract

Cited by 132 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we consider a further generalization of the proof system model, due to BenOr, Goldwasser, Kilian and Wigderson [6], where instead of a single prover there may be many. This apparently gives the model additional power. The intuition for this may be seen by considering the case of two criminal suspects who are under interrogation to see if they are guilty of together robbing a bank. Of course they (the provers) are trying to convince Scotland Yard (the verifier) of their innocence. Assuming that they are in fact innocent, it is clear that their ability to convince the police of this is enhanced if they are questioned in separate rooms and can corroborate each other's stories without communicating. We shall see later in this paper that this sort of corroboration is the key to the additional power of multiple provers. Interactive proof systems have seen a number of important applications to cryptography [23, 22], algebraic complexity [3], program testing [7, 8] and distributed computation [16, 23]. For example, a chain of results concerning interactive proof systems [22, 3, 24, 9] conclude that if the graph isomorphism problem is NPcomplete then the polynomial time hierarchy collapses. Multipleprover interactive proof systems have also seen several important applications including the analysis of program testing [7, 4] and the complexity of approximation algorithms [14, 2, 1]. Brief summary of results: First we give a simple characterization of the power of the multiprover model in terms of probabilistic oracle Turing machines. Then we show that every language accepted by multiple prover interactive proof systems can be computed in nondeterministic exponential time. Babai, Fortnow and Lund [4] have since shown this bound is tight. We then show results like th...
Hardness Of Approximations
, 1996
"... This chapter is a selfcontained survey of recent results about the hardness of approximating NPhard optimization problems. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 101 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This chapter is a selfcontained survey of recent results about the hardness of approximating NPhard optimization problems.
Twoprover oneround proof systems: their power and their problems
 In Proceedings of the TwentyFourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
, 1992
"... We characterize the power of twoprover oneround (MI’P(2, 1)) proof systems, showing that M1P(2, 1) = NEXPTIME. However, the following intriguing question remains open: Does parallel repetition decrease the error probability y of MlP(2, 1) proof systems? We use techniques based on quadratic program ..."
Abstract

Cited by 96 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We characterize the power of twoprover oneround (MI’P(2, 1)) proof systems, showing that M1P(2, 1) = NEXPTIME. However, the following intriguing question remains open: Does parallel repetition decrease the error probability y of MlP(2, 1) proof systems? We use techniques based on quadratic programming to study this problem, and prove the parallel repetition conjecture in some special cases. Interestingly, our work leads to a general polynomial time heuristic for any NPproblem. We prove the effectiveness of this heuristic for several problems, such as computing the chromatic number of perfect graphs. him, without the ability to communicate with other provers. When the protocol ends, the verifier evaluates a polynomial time predicate on his coin tosses and on the messages exchanged and decides whether to accept or reject. Definition 1.1 A kprover rround protocol is an MIP(k,r) proof system \or language L ij;
Robust PCPs of Proximity, Shorter PCPs and Applications to Coding
 in Proc. 36th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing
, 2004
"... We continue the study of the tradeo between the length of PCPs and their query complexity, establishing the following main results (which refer to proofs of satis ability of circuits of size n): 1. We present PCPs of length exp( ~ O(log log n) ) n that can be veri ed by making o(log log n) ..."
Abstract

Cited by 80 (25 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We continue the study of the tradeo between the length of PCPs and their query complexity, establishing the following main results (which refer to proofs of satis ability of circuits of size n): 1. We present PCPs of length exp( ~ O(log log n) ) n that can be veri ed by making o(log log n) Boolean queries.
Consequences and Limits of Nonlocal Strategies
, 2010
"... Thispaperinvestigatesthepowersandlimitationsofquantum entanglementinthecontext of cooperative games of incomplete information. We give several examples of such nonlocal games where strategies that make use of entanglement outperform all possible classical strategies. One implication ofthese examples ..."
Abstract

Cited by 72 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Thispaperinvestigatesthepowersandlimitationsofquantum entanglementinthecontext of cooperative games of incomplete information. We give several examples of such nonlocal games where strategies that make use of entanglement outperform all possible classical strategies. One implication ofthese examplesis that entanglement canprofoundly affectthesoundness property of twoprover interactive proof systems. We then establish limits on the probability with which strategies making use of entanglement can win restricted types of nonlocal games. These upperbounds mayberegardedasgeneralizationsof Tsirelsontypeinequalities, which place bounds on the extent to which quantum information can allow for the violation of Bell inequalities. We also investigate the amount of entanglement required by optimal and nearly optimal quantum strategies forsome games.
Parallelization, Amplification, and Exponential Time Simulation of Quantum Interactive Proof Systems
 In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
, 2000
"... In this paper we consider quantum interactive proof systems, which are interactive proof systems in which the prover and verier may perform quantum computations and exchange quantum information. We prove that any polynomialround quantum interactive proof system with twosided bounded error can be p ..."
Abstract

Cited by 65 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we consider quantum interactive proof systems, which are interactive proof systems in which the prover and verier may perform quantum computations and exchange quantum information. We prove that any polynomialround quantum interactive proof system with twosided bounded error can be parallelized to a quantum interactive proof system with exponentially small onesided error in which the prover and verier exchange only 3 messages. This yields a simplied proof that PSPACE has 3message quantum interactive proof systems. We also prove that any language having a quantum interactive proof system can be decided in deterministic exponential time, implying that singleprover quantum interactive proof systems are strictly less powerful than multipleprover classical interactive proof systems unless EXP = NEXP. 1. INTRODUCTION Interactive proof systems were introduced by Babai [3] and Goldwasser, Micali, and Racko [17] in 1985. In the same year, Deutsch [10] gave the rst for...