Results 1 - 10
of
216
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 605 (41 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 SNP-hard 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 N-vertex graph to within a factor of N ɛ is NP-hard. 1
LEDA: A Platform for Combinatorial and Geometric Computing
, 1999
"... We give an overview of the LEDA platform for combinatorial and geometric computing and an account of its development. We discuss our motivation for building LEDA and to what extent we have reached our goals. We also discuss some recent theoretical developments. This paper contains no new technical ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 593 (43 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We give an overview of the LEDA platform for combinatorial and geometric computing and an account of its development. We discuss our motivation for building LEDA and to what extent we have reached our goals. We also discuss some recent theoretical developments. This paper contains no new technical material. It is intended as a guide to existing publications about the system. We refer the reader also to our web-pages for more information.
Non-Deterministic Exponential Time has Two-Prover Interactive Protocols
"... We determine the exact power of two-prover inter-active proof systems introduced by Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian, and Wigderson (1988). In this system, two all-powerful non-communicating provers convince a randomizing polynomial time verifier in polynomial time that the input z belongs to the language ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 356 (39 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We determine the exact power of two-prover inter-active proof systems introduced by Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian, and Wigderson (1988). In this system, two all-powerful non-communicating provers convince a randomizing polynomial time verifier in polynomial time that the input z belongs to the language L. It was previously suspected (and proved in a relativized sense) that coNP-complete languages do not admit such proof systems. In sharp contrast, we show that the class of languages having two-prover interactive proof systems is nondeterministic exponential time. After the recent results that all languages in PSPACE have single prover interactive proofs (Lund, Fortnow, Karloff, Nisan, and Shamir), this represents a further step demonstrating the unexpectedly immense power of randomization and interaction in efficient provability. Indeed, it follows that multiple provers with coins are strictly stronger than without, since NEXP # NP. In particular, for the first time, prov-ably polynomial time intractable languages turn out to admit “efficient proof systems’’ since NEXP # P. We show that to prove membership in languages in EXP, the honest provers need the power of EXP only. A consequence, linking more standard concepts of structural complexity, states that if EX P has poly-nomial size circuits then EXP = Cg = MA. The first part of the proof of the main result ex-tends recent techniques of polynomial extrapolation of truth values used in the single prover case. The second part is a verification scheme for multilinearity of an n-variable function held by an oracle and can be viewed as an independent result on program verification. Its proof rests on combinatorial techniques including the estimation of the expansion rate of a graph.
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 319 (27 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 NP-hard.
Self-Testing/Correcting with Applications to Numerical Problems
, 1990
"... Suppose someone gives us an extremely fast program P that we can call as a black box to compute a function f . Should we trust that P works correctly? A self-testing/correcting pair allows us to: (1) estimate the probability that P (x) 6= f(x) when x is randomly chosen; (2) on any input x, compute ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 298 (25 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Suppose someone gives us an extremely fast program P that we can call as a black box to compute a function f . Should we trust that P works correctly? A self-testing/correcting pair allows us to: (1) estimate the probability that P (x) 6= f(x) when x is randomly chosen; (2) on any input x, compute f(x) correctly as long as P is not too faulty on average. Furthermore, both (1) and (2) take time only slightly more than Computer Science Division, U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, Supported by NSF Grant No. CCR 88-13632. y International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, California 94704 z Computer Science Division, U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, Supported by an IBM Graduate Fellowship and NSF Grant No. CCR 88-13632. the original running time of P . We present general techniques for constructing simple to program selftesting /correcting pairs for a variety of numerical problems, including integer multiplication, modular multiplication, matrix multiplicatio...
Algebraic Methods for Interactive Proof Systems
, 1990
"... We present a new algebraic technique for the construc-tion of interactive proof systems. We use our technique to prove that every language in the polynomial-time hierarchy has an interactive proof system. This tech-nique played a pivotal role in the recent proofs that IP=PSPACE (Shamir) and that MIP ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 268 (28 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We present a new algebraic technique for the construc-tion of interactive proof systems. We use our technique to prove that every language in the polynomial-time hierarchy has an interactive proof system. This tech-nique played a pivotal role in the recent proofs that IP=PSPACE (Shamir) and that MIP=NEXP (Babai, Fortnow and Lund).
Small-Bias Probability Spaces: Efficient Constructions and Applications
- SIAM J. Comput
, 1993
"... We show how to efficiently construct a small probability space on n binary random variables such that for every subset, its parity is either zero or one with "almost" equal probability. They are called ffl-biased random variables. The number of random bits needed to generate the random variables is ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 227 (14 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We show how to efficiently construct a small probability space on n binary random variables such that for every subset, its parity is either zero or one with "almost" equal probability. They are called ffl-biased random variables. The number of random bits needed to generate the random variables is O(log n + log 1 ffl ). Thus, if ffl is polynomially small, then the size of the sample space is also polynomial. Random variables that are ffl-biased can be used to construct "almost" k-wise independent random variables where ffl is a function of k. These probability spaces have various applications: 1. Derandomization of algorithms: many randomized algorithms that require only k- wise independence of their random bits (where k is bounded by O(log n)), can be derandomized by using ffl-biased random variables. 2. Reducing the number of random bits required by certain randomized algorithms, e.g., verification of matrix multiplication. 3. Exhaustive testing of combinatorial circui...
Checking Computations in Polylogarithmic Time
, 1991
"... . Motivated by Manuel Blum's concept of instance checking, we consider new, very fast and generic mechanisms of checking computations. Our results exploit recent advances in interactive proof protocols [LFKN92], [Sha92], and especially the MIP = NEXP protocol from [BFL91]. We show that every nondete ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 221 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
. Motivated by Manuel Blum's concept of instance checking, we consider new, very fast and generic mechanisms of checking computations. Our results exploit recent advances in interactive proof protocols [LFKN92], [Sha92], and especially the MIP = NEXP protocol from [BFL91]. We show that every nondeterministic computational task S(x; y), defined as a polynomial time relation between the instance x, representing the input and output combined, and the witness y can be modified to a task S 0 such that: (i) the same instances remain accepted; (ii) each instance/witness pair becomes checkable in polylogarithmic Monte Carlo time; and (iii) a witness satisfying S 0 can be computed in polynomial time from a witness satisfying S. Here the instance and the description of S have to be provided in error-correcting code (since the checker will not notice slight changes). A modification of the MIP proof was required to achieve polynomial time in (iii); the earlier technique yields N O(log log N)...
A Secure and Reliable Bootstrap Architecture
- In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
, 1997
"... In a computer system, the integrity of lower layers is treated as axiomatic by higher layers. Under the presumption that the hardware comprising the machine (the lowest layer) is valid, integrity of a layer can be guaranteed if and only if: (1) the integrity of the lower layers is checked, and (2) t ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 209 (15 self)
- Add to MetaCart
In a computer system, the integrity of lower layers is treated as axiomatic by higher layers. Under the presumption that the hardware comprising the machine (the lowest layer) is valid, integrity of a layer can be guaranteed if and only if: (1) the integrity of the lower layers is checked, and (2) transitions to higher layers occur only after integrity checks on them are complete. The resulting integrity "chain" inductively guarantees system integrity. When these conditions are not met, as they typically are not in the bootstrapping (initialization) of a computer system, no integrity guarantees can be made. Yet, these guarantees are increasingly important to diverse applications such as Internet commerce, intrusion detection systems, and "active networks. " In this paper, we describe the AEGIS architecture for initializing a computer system. It validates integrity at each layer transition in the bootstrap process. AEGIS also includes a recovery process for integrity check failures, and...
The Hardness of Approximate Optima in Lattices, Codes, and Systems of Linear Equations
, 1993
"... We prove the following about the Nearest Lattice Vector Problem (in any `p norm), the Nearest Codeword Problem for binary codes, the problem of learning a halfspace in the presence of errors, and some other problems. 1. Approximating the optimum within any constant factor is NP-hard. 2. If for some ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 137 (7 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We prove the following about the Nearest Lattice Vector Problem (in any `p norm), the Nearest Codeword Problem for binary codes, the problem of learning a halfspace in the presence of errors, and some other problems. 1. Approximating the optimum within any constant factor is NP-hard. 2. If for some ffl ? 0 there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that approximates the optimum within a factor of 2 log 0:5\Gammaffl n , then every NP language can be decided in quasi-polynomial deterministic time, i.e., NP ` DTIME(n poly(log n) ). Moreover, we show that result 2 also holds for the Shortest Lattice Vector Problem in the `1 norm. Also, for some of these problems we can prove the same result as above, but for a larger factor such as 2 log 1\Gammaffl n or n ffl . Improving the factor 2 log 0:5\Gammaffl n to p dimension for either of the lattice problems would imply the hardness of the Shortest Vector Problem in `2 norm; an old open problem. Our proofs use reductions from few-pr...

