DOCSLIB.ORG

Nonrelativizing Separations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nonrelativizing Separations Nonrelativizing Separations Harry Buhrman* Lance Fortnow t Thomas Thierauf+ CWI Dept. of Computer Science Abt. Theoretische Informatik University of Chicago Universitat Ulm PO Box 94079 1100 E. 58th St. Oberer Eselsberg 1090 GB Amsterdam Chicago, IL 60637 89069 Ulm The Netherlands USA Germany Abstract help us decide where and how to put our efforts into solving We show that MAExP. the exponential time version of problems in complexity theory. It is still true that virtually the Merlin-Arthur class, does not have polynomial size cir­ all of the theorems in computational complexity theory that cuits. This significantly improves the previous known result have reasonable relativizations do relativize (see [For94]). due to Kannan since we furthemzore show that our result But we do have a small number of exceptions that arise does not relativize. This is the first separation result in com­ from the area of interactive proofs. These results have pre­ plexity theory that does not relativize. As a corollary to our viously always taken the form of collapses such as IP = separation result we also obtain that PEXP, the exponen­ PSPACE [LFKN92, Sha92], MIP = NEXP [BFL91] and tial time version of PP is not in P /poly. PCP(O(l), O(logn)) =NP [ALM+92]. In this paper we give the first reasonable nonrel­ 1 Introduction ativizing separation results. Namely, we show that Baker, Gill and Solovay [BGS75] noticed that the re­ there exist languages in MAExP, a one-round Merlin­ sults proven in computational complexity theory relativize, Arthur game [BM88] with an exponential-time verifier, i.e. the proofs go through virtually unchanged if all of the that cannot have polynomial-size circuits, in other words, machines involved have access to the same information via MAExP ~ P/poly. On the other hand, we then cre­ an oracle. They then developed relativized worlds where ate a relativized world where every MAExP language has P = NP and P =f. NP and thus argued that the current tech­ polynomial-size circuits, i.e., MAExP ~ P/poly. niques in complexity theory could not settle this question. Paul, Pippenger, Szemeredi and Trotter [PPST83] show More than two decades later, relativization still plays a separation of nondeterministic linear time from determin­ in important role in complexity theory. Though no longer istic linear time where one can create a relativized world believed to be any fonn of an independence result, they do where these two classes coincide. However, both the sepa­ ration and the oracle heavily depend on the machine model *Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.cwi.nl!buhrrnan. Par­ where our results are model independent. tially supported by the Dutch foundation for scientific research (NWO) by SION project 612-34-002, and by the European Union through Neu­ We can strengthen our oracle to work for MIPExP, the roCOLT ESPRIT Working Group Nr. 8556, and HC&M grant nr. languages accepted by multiple prover interactive proof ERB4050PL93-05 I 6. systems [BGKW88] with an exponential-time verifier. In t Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.cs.uchicago.edurfortnow. Work done while on leave at fact, besides having small circuits, relative to our oracle CWI. Email: [email protected]. Supported in part by NSF grant MIPExP languages can be accepted in pNP and in EBP. CCR 92-53582, the Dutch Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO) and Since these classes are contained in MIPExp, we get a rel- a Fulbright Scholar award. i Email: [email protected]. URL: http://hermes.infonnatik.uni-ulm.de/ti/Personen/tt.html. 8 1093-0159/98 $10.00 © 1998 IEEE ativized world where Let # M ( x) represent the number of accepting compu­ tations of a nondeterministic Turing machine M ( x ), and P/poly n pNP n EBP. #MR( x) the number of rejecting computations of M ( x ). This contrasts greatly with the situation in the unrelativized A language L is in EBP if there exists a polynomial-time world where we have nondeterministic Turing machine M such that for all x, pNP U 4P C PSPACE x EL {:=::} #M(x) is odd. C EXPSPACE A language L is in PP if there exists a polynomial-time C NEEXP nondetenninistic Turing machine M such that for all x, MIPExP, x EL {:=::} #M(x) > #MR(x). where NEEXP is nondetenninistic double exponential PEXP is the exponential-time version of PP, i.e., the time. polynomial-time nondeterministic Turing machine in the Our proof that MAExP does not lie in P /poly uses the definition of PP is nondeterministic exponential-time. result of Babai, Fortnow, Nisan and Wigderson [BFNW93] A language L is in MA if there exists a probabilistic that if EXP has polynomial-size circuits then EXP= MA. polynomial time Turing machine M and a polynomial q( n) Since this is the only part of the proof that does not rel­ such that ativize, our paper gives the first oracle where this Babai­ Fortnow-Nisan-Wigderson result does not relativize. • x EL=> 3y E ~q(lxlJ Pr(M(x, y) accepts) 2:: 2/3, As a corollary to our separation result we also obtain the and separation between PEXP, the exponential time version of I:;q(lxll Pr(M(x, y) accepts):::; 1/3. PP, and P/poly. Finding nonrelativizing results like these • x ~ L => \fy E allows us to better understand the importance and limita­ This corresponds to the Merlin-Arthur games due to Babai tions of relativization and gives us new ideas on how to and Moran [BM88]. prove other nonrelativizing results. We also consider multiple-prover interactive proof sys­ 2 Preliminaries tems as developed by Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian and the verifier can ask We use (J:1, ... , .tk) to be any polynomial-time com­ Wigderson [BGKW88). In this model, are unable to communi­ putable and invertible tupling function. For a language A, questions of several provers that cate with each other. Babai, Fortnow and Lund [BFL9 l] we denote the characteristic function of A as A(.). that the class, MIP, of languages provable by such We assume the reader familiar with basic notations in show is equal to NEXP. complexity theory and classes such as P and NP. We let systems 0111 0111 We use MAExP and MIPExP to represent the Merlin­ EXP = DTIME[~" ] and NEXP = NTIME[2" ]. Arthur games and multiple-prover interactive proof sys­ The class P/poly consists of languages accepted by tems where we allow the verifier to use time 2n • for some a family of polynomial-size circuits or equivalently a fixed k. In particular, the provers can send messages up to polynomial-time Turing machine given a polynomially­ this length to the verifier. length advice that depends only on the length of the input. More fonnally, L E P/poly if there exist A E Panda 3 A Nonrelativizable Separation polynomially length bounded function h : N r-. E* such The computational power of polynomial-size circuits, that for al I i: P /poly, is an interesting issue. In particular, whether one can solve all sets in NP within P /poly is still an open ques­ x EL -<::::==> (x,h(jxj)) EA. tion, although there are strong indications that this is not The value h(IJ:I) is called the advice for strings of length possible: otherwise the polynomial hierarchy collapses to 1x1. I:~ [KL80]. 9 With respect to absolute separations, Kannan [Kan82] But this contradicts Theorem 3.1. 0 that there are sets in NEXPNP that cannot be com­ showed The same proof works for MAExP n coMAExP instead by polynomial-size circuits. puted of just MAEXP· Then we need the form of Kannan's result Theorem 3.1 (Kannan) as stated in Theorem 3.1. NEX~P n coNEXPNP </;. P /po! y. Corollary 3.5 MAExP n coMAEXr i P /poly. We improve Kannan 's result and show that there are sets Vereshchagin [Ver92] shows that MA is in PP. By in MAExP that cannot be computed by polynomial-size cir­ padding analogously to the proof of Lemma 3.3 this im­ cuits. We use the following result ofBabai, Fortnow, Nisan plies that MAExP ~ PEXP. and Wigderson [BFNW93]. Corollary 3.6 PEXP i P/poly. Theorem 3.2 (BFNW) EXP~ P/poly => EXP= MA. 4 Relativized Collapse In order to prove the separation result we will also need In this section we show that our separation result from the following lemma. the previous section does not relativize. This is the first known example of a non-relativizing separation result. Lemma3.3 N~P = MA => NEX~P = MAEXP· Theorem 4.1 There exists an oracle A such that Proof: Let A be a set in NEX~P, and let this be MA~xp ~ pA /poly. witnessed by an alternating Turing machine that runs in Proof: Let /I.Ji be an enumeration of potential verifiers, time 2P(n) for some polynomial p. Consider the following i.e., probabilistic Turing machines, that run in time 2n. It is padded version of A: sufficient to encode just these machines: for verifiers that A'= { (x, 02 v(lxl)) IX EA}. use time 2n k we can use padding to reduce the language to a verifier that uses 2" time. It follows that A' is in N~P and by assumption is in MA. We first describe how to encode inputs of a single This however implies that removing the padding yields that length. Later we will show how to combine lengths. For 0 A E MAEXP· inputs of length n, we will encode languages proven to ver­ We are now ready to prove our separation result. ifiers M1, ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interactive Proof Systems and Alternating Time-Space Complexity
    Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 55-73 55 Elsevier Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity Lance Fortnow” and Carsten Lund** Department of Computer Science, Unicersity of Chicago. 1100 E. 58th Street, Chicago, IL 40637, USA Abstract Fortnow, L. and C. Lund, Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity, Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 55-73. We show a rough equivalence between alternating time-space complexity and a public-coin interactive proof system with the verifier having a polynomial-related time-space complexity. Special cases include the following: . All of NC has interactive proofs, with a log-space polynomial-time public-coin verifier vastly improving the best previous lower bound of LOGCFL for this model (Fortnow and Sipser, 1988). All languages in P have interactive proofs with a polynomial-time public-coin verifier using o(log’ n) space. l All exponential-time languages have interactive proof systems with public-coin polynomial-space exponential-time verifiers. To achieve better bounds, we show how to reduce a k-tape alternating Turing machine to a l-tape alternating Turing machine with only a constant factor increase in time and space. 1. Introduction In 1981, Chandra et al. [4] introduced alternating Turing machines, an extension of nondeterministic computation where the Turing machine can make both existential and universal moves. In 1985, Goldwasser et al. [lo] and Babai [l] introduced interactive proof systems, an extension of nondeterministic computation consisting of two players, an infinitely powerful prover and a probabilistic polynomial-time verifier. The prover will try to convince the verifier of the validity of some statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonas Kvarnström Automated Planning Group Department of Computer and Information Science Linköping University
    Jonas Kvarnström Automated Planning Group Department of Computer and Information Science Linköping University What is the complexity of plan generation? . How much time and space (memory) do we need? Vague question – let’s try to be more specific… . Assume an infinite set of problem instances ▪ For example, “all classical planning problems” . Analyze all possible algorithms in terms of asymptotic worst case complexity . What is the lowest worst case complexity we can achieve? . What is asymptotic complexity? ▪ An algorithm is in O(f(n)) if there is an algorithm for which there exists a fixed constant c such that for all n, the time to solve an instance of size n is at most c * f(n) . Example: Sorting is in O(n log n), So sorting is also in O( ), ▪ We can find an algorithm in O( ), and so on. for which there is a fixed constant c such that for all n, If we can do it in “at most ”, the time to sort n elements we can do it in “at most ”. is at most c * n log n Some problem instances might be solved faster! If the list happens to be sorted already, we might finish in linear time: O(n) But for the entire set of problems, our guarantee is O(n log n) So what is “a planning problem of size n”? Real World + current problem Abstraction Language L Approximation Planning Problem Problem Statement Equivalence P = (, s0, Sg) P=(O,s0,g) The input to a planner Planner is a problem statement The size of the problem statement depends on the representation! Plan a1, a2, …, an PDDL: How many characters are there in the domain and problem files? Now: The complexity of PLAN-EXISTENCE .
    [Show full text]
  • EXPSPACE-Hardness of Behavioural Equivalences of Succinct One
    EXPSPACE-hardness of behavioural equivalences of succinct one-counter nets Petr Janˇcar1 Petr Osiˇcka1 Zdenˇek Sawa2 1Dept of Comp. Sci., Faculty of Science, Palack´yUniv. Olomouc, Czech Rep. [email protected], [email protected] 2Dept of Comp. Sci., FEI, Techn. Univ. Ostrava, Czech Rep. [email protected] Abstract We note that the remarkable EXPSPACE-hardness result in [G¨oller, Haase, Ouaknine, Worrell, ICALP 2010] ([GHOW10] for short) allows us to answer an open complexity ques- tion for simulation preorder of succinct one counter nets (i.e., one counter automata with no zero tests where counter increments and decrements are integers written in binary). This problem, as well as bisimulation equivalence, turn out to be EXPSPACE-complete. The technique of [GHOW10] was referred to by Hunter [RP 2015] for deriving EXPSPACE-hardness of reachability games on succinct one-counter nets. We first give a direct self-contained EXPSPACE-hardness proof for such reachability games (by adjust- ing a known PSPACE-hardness proof for emptiness of alternating finite automata with one-letter alphabet); then we reduce reachability games to (bi)simulation games by using a standard “defender-choice” technique. 1 Introduction arXiv:1801.01073v1 [cs.LO] 3 Jan 2018 We concentrate on our contribution, without giving a broader overview of the area here. A remarkable result by G¨oller, Haase, Ouaknine, Worrell [2] shows that model checking a fixed CTL formula on succinct one-counter automata (where counter increments and decre- ments are integers written in binary) is EXPSPACE-hard. Their proof is interesting and nontrivial, and uses two involved results from complexity theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity Zoo
    The Complexity Zoo Scott Aaronson www.ScottAaronson.com LATEX Translation by Chris Bourke [email protected] 417 classes and counting 1 Contents 1 About This Document 3 2 Introductory Essay 4 2.1 Recommended Further Reading ......................... 4 2.2 Other Theory Compendia ............................ 5 2.3 Errors? ....................................... 5 3 Pronunciation Guide 6 4 Complexity Classes 10 5 Special Zoo Exhibit: Classes of Quantum States and Probability Distribu- tions 110 6 Acknowledgements 116 7 Bibliography 117 2 1 About This Document What is this? Well its a PDF version of the website www.ComplexityZoo.com typeset in LATEX using the complexity package. Well, what’s that? The original Complexity Zoo is a website created by Scott Aaronson which contains a (more or less) comprehensive list of Complexity Classes studied in the area of theoretical computer science known as Computa- tional Complexity. I took on the (mostly painless, thank god for regular expressions) task of translating the Zoo’s HTML code to LATEX for two reasons. First, as a regular Zoo patron, I thought, “what better way to honor such an endeavor than to spruce up the cages a bit and typeset them all in beautiful LATEX.” Second, I thought it would be a perfect project to develop complexity, a LATEX pack- age I’ve created that defines commands to typeset (almost) all of the complexity classes you’ll find here (along with some handy options that allow you to conveniently change the fonts with a single option parameters). To get the package, visit my own home page at http://www.cse.unl.edu/~cbourke/.
    [Show full text]
  • Delegating Computation: Interactive Proofs for Muggles∗
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Revision 1 of Report No. 108 (2017) Delegating Computation: Interactive Proofs for Muggles∗ Shafi Goldwasser Yael Tauman Kalai Guy N. Rothblum MIT and Weizmann Institute Microsoft Research Weizmann Institute [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract In this work we study interactive proofs for tractable languages. The (honest) prover should be efficient and run in polynomial time, or in other words a \muggle".1 The verifier should be super-efficient and run in nearly-linear time. These proof systems can be used for delegating computation: a server can run a computation for a client and interactively prove the correctness of the result. The client can verify the result's correctness in nearly-linear time (instead of running the entire computation itself). Previously, related questions were considered in the Holographic Proof setting by Babai, Fortnow, Levin and Szegedy, in the argument setting under computational assumptions by Kilian, and in the random oracle model by Micali. Our focus, however, is on the original inter- active proof model where no assumptions are made on the computational power or adaptiveness of dishonest provers. Our main technical theorem gives a public coin interactive proof for any language computable by a log-space uniform boolean circuit with depth d and input length n. The verifier runs in time n · poly(d; log(n)) and space O(log(n)), the communication complexity is poly(d; log(n)), and the prover runs in time poly(n). In particular, for languages computable by log-space uniform NC (circuits of polylog(n) depth), the prover is efficient, the verifier runs in time n · polylog(n) and space O(log(n)), and the communication complexity is polylog(n).
    [Show full text]
  • 5.2 Intractable Problems -- NP Problems
    Algorithms for Data Processing Lecture VIII: Intractable Problems–NP Problems Alessandro Artale Free University of Bozen-Bolzano [email protected] of Computer Science http://www.inf.unibz.it/˜artale 2019/20 – First Semester MSc in Computational Data Science — UNIBZ Some material (text, figures) displayed in these slides is courtesy of: Alberto Montresor, Werner Nutt, Kevin Wayne, Jon Kleinberg, Eva Tardos. A. Artale Algorithms for Data Processing Definition. P = set of decision problems for which there exists a poly-time algorithm. Problems and Algorithms – Decision Problems The Complexity Theory considers so called Decision Problems. • s Decision• Problem. X Input encoded asX a finite“yes” binary string ; • Decision ProblemA : Is conceived asX a set of strings on whichs the answer to the decision problem is ; yes if s ∈ X Algorithm for a decision problemA s receives an input string , and no if s 6∈ X ( ) = A. Artale Algorithms for Data Processing Problems and Algorithms – Decision Problems The Complexity Theory considers so called Decision Problems. • s Decision• Problem. X Input encoded asX a finite“yes” binary string ; • Decision ProblemA : Is conceived asX a set of strings on whichs the answer to the decision problem is ; yes if s ∈ X Algorithm for a decision problemA s receives an input string , and no if s 6∈ X ( ) = Definition. P = set of decision problems for which there exists a poly-time algorithm. A. Artale Algorithms for Data Processing Towards NP — Efficient Verification • • The issue here is the3-SAT contrast between finding a solution Vs. checking a proposed solution.I ConsiderI for example : We do not know a polynomial-time algorithm to find solutions; but Checking a proposed solution can be easily done in polynomial time (just plug 0/1 and check if it is a solution).
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proofs
    Interactive proofs April 12, 2014 [72] L´aszl´oBabai. Trading group theory for randomness. In Proc. 17th STOC, pages 421{429. ACM Press, 1985. doi:10.1145/22145.22192. [89] L´aszl´oBabai and Shlomo Moran. Arthur-Merlin games: A randomized proof system and a hierarchy of complexity classes. J. Comput. System Sci., 36(2):254{276, 1988. doi:10.1016/0022-0000(88)90028-1. [99] L´aszl´oBabai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. Nondeterministic ex- ponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. In Proc. 31st FOCS, pages 16{25. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1990. doi:10.1109/FSCS.1990.89520. See item 1991.108. [108] L´aszl´oBabai, Lance Fortnow, and Carsten Lund. Nondeterministic expo- nential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Comput. Complexity, 1 (1):3{40, 1991. doi:10.1007/BF01200056. Full version of 1990.99. [136] Sanjeev Arora, L´aszl´oBabai, Jacques Stern, and Z. (Elizabeth) Sweedyk. The hardness of approximate optima in lattices, codes, and systems of linear equations. In Proc. 34th FOCS, pages 724{733, Palo Alto CA, 1993. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1993.366815. Conference version of item 1997:160. [160] Sanjeev Arora, L´aszl´oBabai, Jacques Stern, and Z. (Elizabeth) Sweedyk. The hardness of approximate optima in lattices, codes, and systems of linear equations. J. Comput. System Sci., 54(2):317{331, 1997. doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1472. Full version of 1993.136. [111] L´aszl´oBabai, Lance Fortnow, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. BPP has subexponential time simulations unless EXPTIME has publishable proofs. In Proc.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Doubly-Efficient Interactive Proof Systems for Locally
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Revision 3 of Report No. 18 (2017) Simple doubly-efficient interactive proof systems for locally-characterizable sets Oded Goldreich∗ Guy N. Rothblumy September 8, 2017 Abstract A proof system is called doubly-efficient if the prescribed prover strategy can be implemented in polynomial-time and the verifier’s strategy can be implemented in almost-linear-time. We present direct constructions of doubly-efficient interactive proof systems for problems in P that are believed to have relatively high complexity. Specifically, such constructions are presented for t-CLIQUE and t-SUM. In addition, we present a generic construction of such proof systems for a natural class that contains both problems and is in NC (and also in SC). The proof systems presented by us are significantly simpler than the proof systems presented by Goldwasser, Kalai and Rothblum (JACM, 2015), let alone those presented by Reingold, Roth- blum, and Rothblum (STOC, 2016), and can be implemented using a smaller number of rounds. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The current work . 1 1.2 Relation to prior work . 3 1.3 Organization and conventions . 4 2 Preliminaries: The sum-check protocol 5 3 The case of t-CLIQUE 5 4 The general result 7 4.1 A natural class: locally-characterizable sets . 7 4.2 Proof of Theorem 1 . 8 4.3 Generalization: round versus computation trade-off . 9 4.4 Extension to a wider class . 10 5 The case of t-SUM 13 References 15 Appendix: An MA proof system for locally-chracterizable sets 18 ∗Department of Computer Science, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Complexity Theory
    500 COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY A. M. Turing, Collected Works: Mathematical Logic, R. O. Gandy and C. E. M. Yates (eds.), Amsterdam, The Nethrelands: Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 2001. S. BARRY COOPER University of Leeds Leeds, United Kingdom COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY Complexity theory is the part of theoretical computer science that attempts to prove that certain transformations from input to output are impossible to compute using a reasonable amount of resources. Theorem 1 below illus- trates the type of ‘‘impossibility’’ proof that can sometimes be obtained (1); it talks about the problem of determining whether a logic formula in a certain formalism (abbreviated WS1S) is true. Theorem 1. Any circuit of AND,OR, and NOT gates that takes as input a WS1S formula of 610 symbols and outputs a bit that says whether the formula is true must have at least 10125gates. This is a very compelling argument that no such circuit will ever be built; if the gates were each as small as a proton, such a circuit would fill a sphere having a diameter of 40 billion light years! Many people conjecture that somewhat similar intractability statements hold for the problem of factoring 1000-bit integers; many public-key cryptosys- tems are based on just such assumptions. It is important to point out that Theorem 1 is specific to a particular circuit technology; to prove that there is no efficient way to compute a function, it is necessary to be specific about what is performing the computation. Theorem 1 is a compelling proof of intractability precisely because every deterministic computer that can be pur- Yu.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the NEXP Vs. P/Poly Problem and Its Variants by Barıs
    A Study of the NEXP vs. P/poly Problem and Its Variants by Barı¸sAydınlıoglu˘ A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Computer Sciences) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON 2017 Date of final oral examination: August 15, 2017 This dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Eric Bach, Professor, Computer Sciences Jin-Yi Cai, Professor, Computer Sciences Shuchi Chawla, Associate Professor, Computer Sciences Loris D’Antoni, Asssistant Professor, Computer Sciences Joseph S. Miller, Professor, Mathematics © Copyright by Barı¸sAydınlıoglu˘ 2017 All Rights Reserved i To Azadeh ii acknowledgments I am grateful to my advisor Eric Bach, for taking me on as his student, for being a constant source of inspiration and guidance, for his patience, time, and for our collaboration in [9]. I have a story to tell about that last one, the paper [9]. It was a late Monday night, 9:46 PM to be exact, when I e-mailed Eric this: Subject: question Eric, I am attaching two lemmas. They seem simple enough. Do they seem plausible to you? Do you see a proof/counterexample? Five minutes past midnight, Eric responded, Subject: one down, one to go. I think the first result is just linear algebra. and proceeded to give a proof from The Book. I was ecstatic, though only for fifteen minutes because then he sent a counterexample refuting the other lemma. But a third lemma, inspired by his counterexample, tied everything together. All within three hours. On a Monday midnight. I only wish that I had asked to work with him sooner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Debate Checking
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 16 (2014) The Complexity of Debate Checking H. G¨okalp Demirci1, A. C. Cem Say2 and Abuzer Yakaryılmaz3,∗ 1University of Chicago, Department of Computer Science, Chicago, IL, USA 2Bo˘gazi¸ci University, Department of Computer Engineering, Bebek 34342 Istanbul,˙ Turkey 3University of Latvia, Faculty of Computing, Raina bulv. 19, R¯ıga, LV-1586 Latvia [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] Keywords: incomplete information debates, private alternation, games, probabilistic computation Abstract We study probabilistic debate checking, where a silent resource-bounded verifier reads a di- alogue about the membership of a given string in the language under consideration between a prover and a refuter. We consider debates of partial and zero information, where the prover is prevented from seeing some or all of the messages of the refuter, as well as those of com- plete information. This model combines and generalizes the concepts of one-way interactive proof systems, games of possibly incomplete information, and probabilistically checkable debate systems. We give full characterizations of the classes of languages with debates checkable by verifiers operating under simultaneous bounds of O(1) space and O(1) random bits. It turns out such verifiers are strictly more powerful than their deterministic counterparts, and allowing a logarithmic space bound does not add to this power. PSPACE and EXPTIME have zero- and partial-information debates, respectively, checkable by constant-space verifiers for any desired error bound when we omit the randomness bound. No amount of randomness can give a ver- ifier under only a fixed time bound a significant performance advantage over its deterministic counterpart.
    [Show full text]
  • NP-Complete Problems and Physical Reality
    NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality Scott Aaronson∗ Abstract Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adia- batic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and “anthropic computing.” The section on soap bubbles even includes some “experimental” re- sults. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics. 1 Introduction “Let a computer smear—with the right kind of quantum randomness—and you create, in effect, a ‘parallel’ machine with an astronomical number of processors . All you have to do is be sure that when you collapse the system, you choose the version that happened to find the needle in the mathematical haystack.” —From Quarantine [31], a 1992 science-fiction novel by Greg Egan If I had to debate the science writer John Horgan’s claim that basic science is coming to an end [48], my argument would lean heavily on one fact: it has been only a decade since we learned that quantum computers could factor integers in polynomial time. In my (unbiased) opinion, the showdown that quantum computing has forced—between our deepest intuitions about computers on the one hand, and our best-confirmed theory of the physical world on the other—constitutes one of the most exciting scientific dramas of our time.
    [Show full text]