Questions tagged [interactive-proofs]

The tag has no usage guidance.

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
1
vote
0answers
175 views

IP, MIP and MIP* with super-polynomial verifier

Regarding each of the above classes, what are the currently known upper bounds when the verifier is given more than polynomial power? Specifically, when do we reach ALL in each of the above classes ...
1
vote
1answer
103 views

Quantum complexity of TQBF with an untrusted oracle

This is a follow up to Quantum complexity of TQBF, trying to model the situation where we have good heuristics. Let $L$ be the language of true, fully alternating totally quantified boolean formulas ...
4
votes
0answers
141 views

Why can MIP be restricted to just two provers?

In several places I see it referred to that the MIP class can be assumed to be two interactive provers that don't communicate with each other, rather than any polynomial number of provers. Why are ...
10
votes
0answers
254 views

Does MIP* = RE algebrize?

Does the MIP* = RE result algebrize? (It doesn’t relativize, as noted here.) If it doesn’t algebrize, is there a more complicated similar notion that it does satisfy?
7
votes
0answers
107 views

Is finding square roots as hard as factoring, when coins are *public* and the square root oracle is adversarial?

Background: There is a well known argument (due to Rabin) that demonstrates that if one has access to an machine that computes square roots of elements in $\mathbb{Z}_n$, with $n = pq$, then $n$ can ...
8
votes
1answer
581 views

Does the MIP* = RE proof work for limited provers?

MIP* = RE shows that two arbitrarily strong entangled provers can convince a verifier of instances of the halting problem. Now assume that we have two entangled provers that are only capable of ...
2
votes
2answers
412 views

If $P=BPP$, then Is it correct that $IP=NP$?

This is my first question in this site. I ask this question since I got no comment and no answer for one year and two months in cs.stackexchange and it was automatically deleted by the system. So, ...
6
votes
1answer
120 views

Separation of AM and SZK

Are any results on the separation of AM from SZK known (e.g. relativized separation, or a separation assuming one-way functions exist, etc.)?
2
votes
1answer
66 views

QPIP minimal client quantum capabilities

It is conjectured that classical (BPP) client blind quantum computing is implausible according to Aaronson et al: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/...
11
votes
0answers
172 views

$\exists \mathbb R$ and IP

We know NP$\subseteq$ $\exists \mathbb R$$\subseteq$ PSPACE=IP, but is there some more direct proof for $\exists \mathbb R\subseteq$ IP? What about the other direction, are there some Arthur-Merlin ...
2
votes
0answers
82 views

What is the computational complexity of determining the mixing time of a Cayley graph?

Bayer and Diaconis famously proved that a deck of fifty-two cards will be mixed after only seven dovetail shuffles. Numberphile has a nice series of videos of Diaconis explaining the proof. I ...
1
vote
0answers
100 views

An explicit hard function for P/poly

It is known that $\textbf{MA}_{\textbf{EXP}} \not\subset \textbf{P/poly}$. Is it known any explicit language from $\textbf{MA}_{\textbf{EXP}}$ that does not belongs to $\textbf{P/poly}$? (An example ...
3
votes
0answers
285 views

On “The Power of the Prover” in Arora and Barak

In section 8.4 of Arora and Barak, after describing the public coin protocol for $\mathsf{GNI}$ and $\mathrm{IP=PSPACE}$, the authors state: A curious feature of many known interactive proof systems ...
8
votes
0answers
145 views

Practical interactive proof schemes for NP-hard problems

Model-checking (in the sense of reachability in a succinct graph) is PSPACE-complete. SAT is NP-complete. Both problems are considered intractable, yet there exist tools capable of solving them on ...
0
votes
1answer
123 views

is Zero knowledge Proof same as commitment schemes? [closed]

I am studying about the zero knowledge proofs and I am looking for a practical (example based) approach to undrestand its process. I have studied the theory a little bit and I find it interesting yet ...
6
votes
0answers
162 views

Is $IP$ only interesting because of the equality to $PSPACE$?

I try to understand the advantages of using a probabilistic polynomial-time verifier instead of an determininistic one. I use as literature "Arora, Barak: Computational Complexity", in which the class ...
3
votes
1answer
626 views

Simulating quantum measurements by unitaries

I have seen many papers in which quantum measurements are assumed to be replaced by unitaries. See this quotation from [KW00] for instance: Often we will describe quantum circuits in a high-level ...
7
votes
0answers
121 views

What can we say about AM[log n]?

It is known that $\textbf{AM}[O(1)] = \textbf{AM}$. Since $\textbf{IP}=\textbf{PSPACE}$ we have $\textbf{AM}[poly(n)] = \textbf{PSPACE}$. Can we say something about $\textbf{AM}[ f(n)]$, where $f$ ...
1
vote
0answers
157 views

Examples of problems in $\mathsf{IP}$

What are some examples problems with a direct proof that they are in $\mathsf{IP}$, other than Graph Non-Isomphism? I have been looking for a while, but no luck so far.
5
votes
0answers
200 views

Easy interactive proofs for easy problems?

Motivation Consider some $L \subseteq \{0,1\}^*$. Suppose Alice gives Bob a machine or oracle $M$ that purportedly decides $L$. If Bob has only polynomial time in their disposal, then they cannot ...
6
votes
1answer
341 views

Parity P and AM

What is known about non-trivial inclusions of $\oplus\mathsf{P}$ in other classes? In particular, is it known whether $\oplus\mathsf{P}$ is contained in $\mathsf{AM}$? The same questions apply to the ...
2
votes
0answers
75 views

Are there non-trivial MIP protocols with initially-independent verifiers?

My impression is that for standard constructions of MIP ("Multiple Independent Prover") protocols, the verifiers must have shared randomness. ​ What happens if the verifiers are also independent ...
6
votes
0answers
137 views

Does it matter who begins communication in $IP(f(x))$?

Consider $IP(f(x))$, in other words, the class of languages that admit a private coin protocol $(P, V)$ running in $f(x)$ rounds (often in terms of the size of $x$), satisfying standard constraints. ...
4
votes
0answers
124 views

major applied focuses of different proof assistants

Currently, what are the major applied focuses (if any applications can be deserved such a distinction) of different proof assistants, such as the following? If there are significant differences ...
3
votes
0answers
72 views

Resource tradeoffs in interactive proofs

In an interactive proof, there are a number of resources that can be traded off against each other. For example, verifier time, verifier space (as per this question), amount of randomness used, number ...
4
votes
0answers
98 views

Is perfect zero knowledge sequentially composable without auxiliary input?

It is known that plain and computational zero knowledge proof systems are not sequentially composable without auxiliary input (see for example http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1....
0
votes
0answers
80 views

Understanding MA protocol as a variant of TM for small space setting

MA protocol is one of the most basic models of interactive proofs. Merlin is a prover sending a witness $w$ for given input string $x$, and Arthur is a verifier who verifies if $w$ is a positive ...
1
vote
0answers
135 views

Learning theory vs. Interactive Proofs

Is there any connection between Interactive proofs and learning theory?
2
votes
1answer
158 views

Is there a version of MIP=NEXP with relatively efficient provers?

(My question is not a duplicate of this question.) Fix a good coding of non-deterministic random-access machines. For non-negative integers $m$ that code such a machine, let $\operatorname{states}(...
1
vote
1answer
192 views

Is there a constructive parallel repetition theorem for nice MIP protocols?

Theorem 1.1 of Ran Raz's paper is a non-constructive upper bound on the soundness error of parallel repetitions of a 2-prover minimally minimally interactive proof system with perfect completeness. ...
2
votes
0answers
1k views

From CHSH inequality to CHSH game

I have been going through Certifiable quantum dice: or, true random number generation secure against quantum adversaries by Umesh Vazirani and Thomas Vidick. They have used entangled particles as ...
3
votes
1answer
469 views

Is the D-Wave architecture a close implementation of quantum interactive proof?

A very high level architecture is, as mentioned here, shown in this picture. The component on the left is classical while the one on the right is the D-Wave box. I understand that in QIP, Arthur is ...
4
votes
3answers
1k views

NIZK proofs: Why is the prove function necessary?

In NIZK proofs, the prover can generate its proof for statement $y$ and witness $w$ using $$\pi \gets \mathrm{Prove}(\sigma,y,w)\text{,}$$ where $\sigma$ is the common reference string. Source: ...
4
votes
3answers
503 views

On definition of IP class

I'm a little bit lost with the actual definition of IP, some sources define as interaction between algorithms starting with Verifier, another one does not any put restriction on who send the first ...
6
votes
2answers
199 views

Delegating all of the work to the prover in $\mathcal{MA}$ protocols

An $\mathcal{MA}$ communication complexity protocol is communication complexity protocol that starts with an omniscient prover that sends a proof (that depends on the the specific input of the players,...
18
votes
3answers
520 views

$\mathcal{MA}$ in terms of $\mathcal{PCP}$

The probabilistic proof system $\mathcal{PCP}[f(n),g(n)]$ is commonly referred to as a restriction of $\mathcal{MA}$, where Arthur can only use $f(n)$ random bits and can only examine $g(n)$ bits of ...
10
votes
1answer
484 views

One-sided errors in probablistic proof systems

In most probabilistic proof systems ( PCP theorem, for instance), the error-probabilities are usually defined on the side of the false-positives, i.e., a typical definition could look like : if $x \...
6
votes
0answers
171 views

The relation between NP and IP(2pfa)

As far as I know, it is not known whether $ \mathsf{NP} \subseteq \mathsf{IP(2pfa)} $, where $ \mathsf{IP(2pfa)} $ is the class of languages having interactive proof systems with some two-way ...
14
votes
2answers
764 views

Landscape of interactive proof systems

My first question is whether an interactive proof system characterisation is known for all the classic complexity classes. I would call P, NP, PSPACE, EXP, NEXP,EXPSPACE, recursive and recursively ...
11
votes
0answers
183 views

generalizing Ben-Or et al's two-prover bit commitment scheme beyond bits

In "Multi-Prover Interactive Proofs: How to Remove Intractability Assumptions" by Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian, and Wigderson, the authors introduce a bit commitment protocol as a subroutine to their ...
13
votes
0answers
301 views

Is there any known nontrivial result on QIP systems having a space-bounded verifier?

Is there any known nontrivial result on quantum interactive proof (QIP) systems having a space-bounded verifier? The only paper I know is An application of quantum finite automata to interactive ...
15
votes
1answer
289 views

Does requiring uniqueness of valid answers for Merlin limit the power of Arthur-Merlin protocols?

Preamble. The complexity class AM are those problems which can be solved by a two-round interactive proof system between a prover "Merlin" and a verifier "Arthur". A problem — which tests some ...
20
votes
1answer
1k views

What's the “real” reason that IP=PSPACE is non-relativizing?

IP=PSPACE is listed as the canonical example of a non-relativizing result, and the proof for this is that there exists an oracle $O$ such that ${\sf coNP}^O \not\subseteq {\sf IP}^O$, while ${\sf coNP}...
13
votes
1answer
229 views

Is there a continuous version of parallel repetition theorem

Raz's Parallel pretition theorem is an important result in PCP, inapproximation, etc. The theorem is fomalized as follows. A game $G=(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},\pi, V)$, where $\...
14
votes
1answer
787 views

What is known about multi-prover interactive proofs with short messages?

Beigi, Shor and Watrous have a very nice paper on the power of quantum interactive proofs with short messages. They consider three variants of 'short messages', and the specific one I care about is ...
2
votes
1answer
428 views

Arthur-Merlin protocol with BQP power

Context: Aaronson raised the following question: Let f be a black-box function, which is promised either to satisfy the Simon promise or to be one-to-one. Can a prover with the power of BQP ...
11
votes
1answer
326 views

The Equivalency of Two Definitions of Completeness & Soundness in Interactive Proof Systems

The completeness and soundness in interactive proof systems are informally defined as: Completeness: If a statement is true, the honest prover can convince the honest verifier of this fact w.h.p. ...
9
votes
3answers
576 views

Interactive Proofs via Postselection?

Define the computational model MPostBQP to be identical to PostBQP except we allow polynomially many qubit measurements before the post-selection and final measurement. Can we give any evidence ...
11
votes
3answers
1k views

Can Merlin convince Arthur about a certain sum?

Merlin, who has unbounded computational resources, wants to convince Arthur that $$m|\sum_{p\le N,\ p\text{ prime}}p^k$$ for $(N,m,k)$ with $k=O(\log N)$ and $m=O(N).$ Computing this sum in the ...
10
votes
1answer
546 views

Interactive Proof for HORN-SAT?

Is there a way that a prover can convince a verifier that some HORN-SAT expression is satisfiable? Of course this might seem silly, since there are linear time algorithms for HORN-SAT. On the other ...