DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture 10 1 Interactive Proof System (Prover-Verifier Interaction) 2 Graph

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture 10 1 Interactive Proof System (Prover-Verifier Interaction) 2 Graph Theory of Computer Science to Msc Students, Spring 2007 Lecture 10 Lecturer: Dorit Aharonov Scribe: Elad Dinur and Eran Bringer Revised: Shahar Dobzinski, July 2007 1 Interactive Proof System (Prover-Veri¯er interaction) An interactive proof system is an abstract machine that models computation as the ex- change of messages between two parties. he parties, the veri¯er and the prover, interact by exchanging messages in order to ascertain whether a given string x belongs to a language L. The prover is all-powerful, with unlimited computational resources while the veri¯er has bounded computation power (polynomial), but is allowed to flip random coins. Messages are sent between the veri¯er and prover until the veri¯er has an answer to the problem and has \convinced" itself that it is correct. Formally, a language L has an interactive proof system (L 2 IP ) if: ² Completeness: If x 2 L then the veri¯er accepts with probability 1. 1 ² Soundness: If x2 = L then the veri¯er accepts with probability of at most 2 . Trivially, an NP language can be decided by an interactive proof system with one round, by just sending the proof to the veri¯er. It is also clear the if the veri¯er is deterministic, then there is no need to use more than one round (the prover can just simulate the queries of the veri¯er, and send them all in the ¯rst round). However, it turns out the the class IP is much more powerful. 2 Graph ¡ Non ¡ Isomorphism 2 IP Let us consider the following problem, Graph-Non-Isomorphism (GNI): we are given two graphs G1 and G0, and we have to decide whether the graphs are isomorphic. This problem is in CoNP, since Graph-Isomorphism is in NP (we can show a permutation as a proof of isomorphism). It is not known whether GNI is in NP, and this is unlikely to be true. Yet, we will show that GNI 2 IP . The protocol goes as follows. The veri¯er selects uniformly at random a bit b. Then, the veri¯er selects uniformly at random a permutation ¦, and sends the permuted graph ¼Gb to the prover. The prover then answers with the value of b. The veri¯er accepts if and only if the prover answers with the correct value of b. To see that the above protocol indeed proves that GNI 2 IP , we have to show that if x 2 L then the veri¯er always accepts, otherwise the prover rejects with probability of 10-1 1 at least 2 . Suppose that x 2 L. The prover gets a graph that is a permutation of one of the graphs and has to decide which graph is it. This graph belongs to one of the two disjoint sets: the set of all graphs that are isomorphic to G0, and the set of all graphs that are isomorphic to G1 (observe that here we assume that the two graphs are indeed not isomorphic, and thus the two sets are disjoint). The prover is all powerful, so it can ¯nd which graph ¼Gb is isomorphic to, thus ¯nding the value of b, as needed. Suppose that x2 = L. That is, the two graphs are isomorphic. Thus, the prover has now way of determining the value of b, as the graph he got from the veri¯er is a permutation of 1 both G0 and G1. Thus, with probability of at least 2 , the prover will return an incorrect guess of b, and the veri¯er will reject. 3 Zero-Knowledge Proofs In fact, a close look at the above protocol reveals a very interesting property: if x 2 L then the veri¯er learns no new information about the proof. In fact, a close look at the above protocol reveals a very interesting property. In x 2 L then the veri¯er learns no new information about WHY it is true that x 2 L! There are very interesting possibilities of using this for cryptography: If you get convinced but learn nothing, then this would mean that you cannot prove it yourself to somebody else. This for example can be used to authenticate yourself, in a convincing way, but in such a way that nobody can use your proof to present themselves as you. This raises a very interesting concept: proofs which reveal nothing but the validity of a certain statement. So, you can get convinced but learn nothing about the REASON for something to be true! Think of the possibilities: Andrew Wiles can send his work on Fermat's last theorem to a respectful mathematical journal, and the referees can be convinced that he indeed correctly proved the theorem, but learn no information at all about the proof itself. We ¯rst have to be careful about how to de¯ne this property, and we do it by introducing the notion of a simulator. A simulator for an interactive-proof system ZK is a probabilistic polynomial-time algorithm A such that if x 2 L then the for all transcripts Y , we have that Pr[ZK(x) = Y ] = Pr[A(x) = Y ]. If an interactive proof protocol has a simulator, then this protocol is a zero-knowledge protocol. The idea is that veri¯er gets no new information from interacting with the prover { he can just run A instead. For example, the simulator for the GNI problem is simple: select a bit b and a permutation of Gb at random, and return the value of b (instead of the prover). It is also possible to de¯ne a class of statistical zero-knowledge proofs, where the simu- lator is not perfect but is very close to the real interaction with very small probability, but this is outside the scope of this course. Another remark is that above we assumed that the veri¯er is honest, that is obeys the protocol. However, it turns out that it is possible to make any zero-knowledge protocol to a protocol that is resistent also against cheating veri¯ers. 10-2 4 Graph ¡ Isomorphism 2 IP We now describe a zero knowledge protocol for graph-isomorphism. In this protocol, the prover ¯rst selects uniformly at random a bit b and a random permutation ¼, and sends the 0 veri¯er the permuted graph ¼Gb . The veri¯er selects uniformly at random a bit b and sends 0 0 it to the prover. The prover has to answer with a permutation ¼ such that ¼ = Gb. Gb0 If x 2 L, then the veri¯er will accepts with probability 1. This is because G0, G1, and 0 ¼Gb are isomorphic to each other, so the veri¯er can ¯nd the right permutation ¼ . If x2 = L 1 0 0 then with probability 2 , ¼Gb is not isomorphic to Gb , and thus a permutation ¼ does not exist. We want to show that this is a zero-knowledge protocol, and for that we need to show there exists a simulator for this protocol. The simulator works in the following way: choose 0 a random bit b, and a permutation ¼ , and let the ¯rst message be ¼Gb . Now let b be the message of the veri¯er, and ¼ the ¯nal message of the prover. 5 NP 2 ZK? We now show that every language that is in NP has a zero knowledge proof. However, for that we will need to assume the existence of a cryptographic primitive, called bit com- mitment. This primitive exists under common cryptographic assumption, such that the existence of one way functions. In other words, we cannot provide strictly zero-knowledge proofs for NPC problems. But we can provide them under some computational assumption, e.g, that factoring is hard (which can be used to design some cryptographic primitive called bit commitment, which we will soon explain). The proofs will not be ZERO knowledge, in the information theoretic sense, but they will be computationally zero knowledge - namely, a computationally bounded veri¯er will learn nothing. A bit-commitment protocol is a protocol in which Alice commits on a bit. That is, Bob is guaranteed that Alice can not change this bit, but still Bob does not know the value of the bit. Given the existence of bit-commitments protocols, let us show that every language in NP has a zero-knowledge proof. Speci¯cally, we show it for 3¡COL, the language in which we are given a graph G and we have to decide whether G can be colored using 3 colors only. In the beginning of the protocol, the prover ¯nds a legal coloring of the graph, selects uniformly at random a permuting of the colors, and commits on that coloring of the n vertices of the graph. The veri¯er selects uniformly at random two adjacent vertices in the graph and asks the prover to reveal their coloring. If the edges are colored in di®erent edges, then the veri¯er rejects, otherwise he accepts. Clearly, if there is a legal coloring then the prover accepts with probability 1. If the graph cannot be colored in 3 colors, then in any coloring at least one edge is colored incorrectly, 10-3 1 and we will query the respective vertices with probability of at least n2 . Thus, in this case 1 the veri¯er rejects with probability of at least 1 ¡ n2 . This probability can be decreased by repeating the protocol enough times. We have to show that this is a zero-knowledge protocol. For that, observe since if G is indeed 3-colorable, then the veri¯er just know that a pair of adjacent verities are colored in di®erent colors.
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]
  • On the Randomness Complexity of Interactive Proofs and Statistical Zero-Knowledge Proofs*
    On the Randomness Complexity of Interactive Proofs and Statistical Zero-Knowledge Proofs* Benny Applebaum† Eyal Golombek* Abstract We study the randomness complexity of interactive proofs and zero-knowledge proofs. In particular, we ask whether it is possible to reduce the randomness complexity, R, of the verifier to be comparable with the number of bits, CV , that the verifier sends during the interaction. We show that such randomness sparsification is possible in several settings. Specifically, unconditional sparsification can be obtained in the non-uniform setting (where the verifier is modelled as a circuit), and in the uniform setting where the parties have access to a (reusable) common-random-string (CRS). We further show that constant-round uniform protocols can be sparsified without a CRS under a plausible worst-case complexity-theoretic assumption that was used previously in the context of derandomization. All the above sparsification results preserve statistical-zero knowledge provided that this property holds against a cheating verifier. We further show that randomness sparsification can be applied to honest-verifier statistical zero-knowledge (HVSZK) proofs at the expense of increasing the communica- tion from the prover by R−F bits, or, in the case of honest-verifier perfect zero-knowledge (HVPZK) by slowing down the simulation by a factor of 2R−F . Here F is a new measure of accessible bit complexity of an HVZK proof system that ranges from 0 to R, where a maximal grade of R is achieved when zero- knowledge holds against a “semi-malicious” verifier that maliciously selects its random tape and then plays honestly.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9 1 Interactive Proof Systems/Protocols
    CS 282A/MATH 209A: Foundations of Cryptography Prof. Rafail Ostrovsky Lecture 9 Lecture date: March 7-9, 2005 Scribe: S. Bhattacharyya, R. Deak, P. Mirzadeh 1 Interactive Proof Systems/Protocols 1.1 Introduction The traditional mathematical notion of a proof is a simple passive protocol in which a prover P outputs a complete proof to a verifier V who decides on its validity. The interaction in this traditional sense is minimal and one-way, prover → verifier. The observation has been made that allowing the verifier to interact with the prover can have advantages, for example proving the assertion faster or proving more expressive languages. This extension allows for the idea of interactive proof systems (protocols). The general framework of the interactive proof system (protocol) involves a prover P with an exponential amount of time (computationally unbounded) and a verifier V with a polyno- mial amount of time. Both P and V exchange multiple messages (challenges and responses), usually dependent upon outcomes of fair coin tosses which they may or may not share. It is easy to see that since V is a poly-time machine (PPT), only a polynomial number of messages may be exchanged between the two. P ’s objective is to convince (prove to) the verifier the truth of an assertion, e.g., claimed knowledge of a proof that x ∈ L. V either accepts or rejects the interaction with the P . 1.2 Definition of Interactive Proof Systems An interactive proof system for a language L is a protocol PV for communication between a computationally unbounded (exponential time) machine P and a probabilistic poly-time (PPT) machine V such that the protocol satisfies the properties of completeness and sound- ness.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proofs for Quantum Computations
    Innovations in Computer Science 2010 Interactive Proofs For Quantum Computations Dorit Aharonov Michael Ben-Or Elad Eban School of Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: Upcoming generations of quantum computers might already be too large to be simulated classically. Is it possible to experimentally test that these systems perform as they should, if we cannot efficiently compute predictions for their behavior? Vazirani has asked [21]: If computing predictions for Quantum Mechanics requires exponential resources, is Quantum Mechanics a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untrusted future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantum computation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions? To provide answers to these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs [13] the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computational capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to few qubits. Our main theorem can be roughly stated as: ”Any language in BQP has a QPIP, and moreover, a fault tolerant one” (providing a partial answer to a challenge posted in [1]). We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. This QPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our second protocol uses polynomial codes QAS due to Ben-Or, Cr´epeau, Gottesman, Hassidim, and Smith [8], combined with quantum fault tolerance and secure multiparty quantum computation techniques.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Probabilistic Proof Systems: a Primer
    Probabilistic Proof Systems: A Primer Oded Goldreich Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. June 30, 2008 Contents Preface 1 Conventions and Organization 3 1 Interactive Proof Systems 4 1.1 Motivation and Perspective ::::::::::::::::::::::: 4 1.1.1 A static object versus an interactive process :::::::::: 5 1.1.2 Prover and Veri¯er :::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 1.1.3 Completeness and Soundness :::::::::::::::::: 6 1.2 De¯nition ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7 1.3 The Power of Interactive Proofs ::::::::::::::::::::: 9 1.3.1 A simple example :::::::::::::::::::::::: 9 1.3.2 The full power of interactive proofs ::::::::::::::: 11 1.4 Variants and ¯ner structure: an overview ::::::::::::::: 16 1.4.1 Arthur-Merlin games a.k.a public-coin proof systems ::::: 16 1.4.2 Interactive proof systems with two-sided error ::::::::: 16 1.4.3 A hierarchy of interactive proof systems :::::::::::: 17 1.4.4 Something completely di®erent ::::::::::::::::: 18 1.5 On computationally bounded provers: an overview :::::::::: 18 1.5.1 How powerful should the prover be? :::::::::::::: 19 1.5.2 Computational Soundness :::::::::::::::::::: 20 2 Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems 22 2.1 De¯nitional Issues :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 23 2.1.1 A wider perspective: the simulation paradigm ::::::::: 23 2.1.2 The basic de¯nitions ::::::::::::::::::::::: 24 2.2 The Power of Zero-Knowledge :::::::::::::::::::::: 26 2.2.1 A simple example :::::::::::::::::::::::: 26 2.2.2 The full power of zero-knowledge proofs ::::::::::::
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 7: Interactive Proofs and Zero Knowledge 1 Interactive Proofs
    CS 276 { Cryptography Sept 24, 2014 Lecture 7: Interactive Proofs and Zero Knowledge Instructor: Sanjam Garg Scribe: Manuel Sabin 1 Interactive Proofs So, what is a proof? We generally have an intuition that a proof can be written down and that, when read, it convinces the reader of some truth. And, as we step into the rigor of mathematics, truth becomes an objective quality based on a set of assumptions or axioms. A proof, then, reduces a statement to those axioms or to something else that has already been shown to reduce to those axioms and we can start rigorously defining a proof. As humans, however, we begin to give proofs more structure to accommodate our limitations. The proof that there are infinitely many primes, for example, would not be satisfying or feasible if its proof was to write out each of the infinitely many primes; not only could the prover never finish their proof, but the verifier would never be able to fully be convinced. In this case, it's become natural to have proofs be finite and generally even succinct. \Succinct," though, has taken on a more defined concept since the advent of computers. Since computers can \read" much quicker than humans, the concept of computational complexity has been developed to gain an idea of what is feasible for a computer. A complexity theoretic concept has been defined to encapsulate the statements that are generally considered \easy" for a computer to verify their veracity when given proofs for them: the class NP. Definition 1 (NP-Verifier) A language L has an NP-verifier if 9 a verifier V that is polynomial time in jxj such that: • Completeness: 8x 2 L; 9 a proof π s:t: V(x; π) = 1 • Soundness: 8x2 = L 8 purported proof π we have V(x; π) = 0 That is, the conventional idea of a proof is formalized in terms of what a computer can efficiently verify.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proofs for Quantum Black-Box Computations
    Interactive Proofs for Quantum Black-Box Computations Jiang Zhang∗ Yu Yuy Dengguo Fengz Shuqin Fanx Zhenfeng Zhang{ Kang Yangk Abstract In this paper, we initiate the study of interactive proofs for the promise problem QBBC (i.e., quantum black-box computations), which consists of a quantum device D(jxi jyi) = jxi Dx(jyi) acting on (n + m) qubits for some self-joint unitary Dx (i.e., Dx(Dx(jyi)) = jyi), a classical device RF deciding the input-output relation of some unknown function F : f0; 1gn ! f0; 1gm, and reals 0 < b < a ≤ 1. Let p(D; x) = k jx; F (x)i hx; F (x)j D(jxi j0mi)k2 be the probability of obtaining (x; F (x)) as a result of a standard measurement of the (n+m)- m qubit state returned by D on input jxi j0 i. The task of the problem QBBC(D; RF ; a; b) is to distinguish between two cases for all x 2 f0; 1gn: • YES Instance: p(D; x) ≥ a; • NO Instance: p(D; x) ≤ b. First, we show that for any constant 15=16 < a ≤ 1, the problem QBBC(D; RF ; a; b) D R has an efficient two-round interactive proof (P ; V F ) which basically allows a verifier V, given a classical black-box device RF , to efficiently verify if the prover P has a quantum D 1+a black-box device (correctly) computing F . This proof system achieves completeness 2 31 ϵ − 15 − 15 and soundness error 32 + 2 +negl(n) for any constant max(0; b 16 ) < ϵ < a 16 , given that the verifier V has some (limited) quantum capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Implausibility of Constant-Round Public-Coin Zero-Knowledge Proofs⋆
    On the Implausibility of Constant-Round Public-Coin Zero-Knowledge Proofs⋆ Yi Deng♯, Juan Garay†, San Ling‡, Huaxiong Wang‡ and Moti Yung♮ ♯ SKLOIS, Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China † Yahoo Research, USA ‡ School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ♮ Snapchat and Columbia University, USA July 18, 2016 Abstract. We consider the problem of whether there exist non-trivial constant-round public-coin zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs. To date, in spite of high interest in the problem, there is no definite answer to the question. We focus on the type of ZK proofs that admit a universal simulator (which handles all malicious verifiers), and show a connection between the existence of such proof systems and a seemingly unrelated “program functionality distinguishing” problem: for a natural class of constant-round public-coin ZK proofs (which we call “canonical,” since all known ZK protocols fall into this category), a session prefix output by the universal simulator can actually be used to distinguish a non-trivial property of the next-step functionality of the verifier’s code. Our result can be viewed as new evidence against the existence of constant-round public-coin ZK proofs, since the existence of such a proof system will bring about either one of the following: (1) a positive result for the above functionality-distinguishing problem, a typical goal in reverse- engineering attempts, commonly believed to be notoriously hard, or (2) a major paradigm shift in simulation strategies, beyond the only known (straight-line simulation) technique applica- ble to their argument counterpart, as we also argue.
    [Show full text]
  • Randomness in Interactive Proofs∗
    Appears in Computational Complexity Vol. 3, 319{354, 1993. Preliminary version in FOCS 90. Randomness in Interactive Proofs∗ Mihir Bellarey Oded Goldreichz Shafi Goldwasserx February 1993 Abstract This paper initiates a study of the quantitative aspects of randomness in interactive proofs. Our main result, which applies to the equivalent form of IP known as Arthur-Merlin (AM) games, is a randomness-efficient technique for decreasing the error probability. Given an AM proof system for L which achieves error probability 1=3 at the cost of Arthur sending l(n) random bits per round, and given a polynomial k = k(n), we show how to construct an AM proof system for L which, in the same number of rounds as the original proof system, achieves error 2−k(n) at the cost of Arthur sending only O(l + k) random bits per round. Underlying the transformation is a novel sampling method for approximating the aver- age value of an arbitrary function f : f0; 1gl ! [0; 1]. The method evaluates the function on O(−2 log δ−1) sample points generated using only O(l + log δ−1) coin tosses to get an estimate which with probability at least 1 − δ is within of the average value of the function. Keywords: Interactive proof systems, Arthur-Merlin games, randomness, sampling methods, error reduction, expander graphs, pairwise independence. yDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, Mail Code 0114, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093. E-mail: [email protected]. Work done while author was at MIT, supported in part by NSF grant No.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 6 1 the Complexity Class IP
    6.842 Randomness and Computation February 27, 2012 Lecture 6 Lecturer: Ronitt Rubinfeld Scribe: Osbert Bastani Today, we will cover 1. the definition of IP, 2. Graph =6∼ 2 IP, 3. IP (public coins) v.s. IP (private coins), 4. protocol for lower bounding set size. 1 The Complexity Class IP Recall the definition of the class NP: Definition 1. The class NP is the class of all decision problems for which \yes" answers can be verified in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine. Similarly, the complexity class IP is the class of languages for which there is a short \interactive" proof that x 2 L. To formalize the notion of an interactive proof, we define an interactive proof system. Definition 2. Consider the following model (see 1): 1. a deterministic unbounded time prover P , 2. a randomized polynomial time verifier V , 3. a pair of conversation tapes on which P and V exchange information. An interactive proof system (IPS, due to Goldwasser, Micali, and Rackoff) for a language L, is a protocol between P and V where 1. P and V are given an input x, 2. through an exchange of messages, P tries to prove to V that x 2 L, 3. at the end of the interaction, V outputs either \accept" if the proof is satisfactory or \reject" if not. We require that 1. if both P and V follow the protocol and x 2 L, then 2 Pr[V accepts x] ≥ ; 3 2. if x2 = L and V follows the protocol, then, regardless of what P does, 2 Pr[V rejects x] ≥ : 3 1 Figure 1: The model for the interactive proof system.
    [Show full text]