computational complexity

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–40 | Cite as

Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols

  • László Babai
  • Lance Fortnow
  • Carsten Lund
Article

Abstract

We determine the exact power of two-prover interactive proof systems introduced by Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian, and Wigderson (1988). In this system, two all-powerful noncommunicating provers convince a randomizing polynomial time verifier in polynomial time that the inputx belongs to the languageL. We show that the class of languages having tow-prover interactive proof systems is nondeterministic exponential time.

We also show that to prove membership in languages inEXP, the honest provers need the power ofEXP only.

The first part of the proof of the main result extends recent techniques of polynomial extrapolation used in the single prover case by Lund, Fortnow, Karloff, Nisan, and Shamir.

The second part is averification scheme for multilinearity of a function in several variables held by an oracle and can be viewed as an independent result onprogram verification. Its proof rests on combinatorial techniques employing a simple isoperimetric inequality for certain graphs:

Subject classifications

68Q15 68Q60 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. V. Aho, J. E. Hopcroft, andJ. D. Ullman,The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Aldous, On the Markov chain simulation method for uniform combinatorial distributions and simulated annealing.Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 1 (1987), 33–46.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. Babai, Trading group theory for randomness, inProc. 17th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1985, 421–429.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. Babai, E-mail and the unexpected power of interaction, in: Proc. 5th Ann. IEEE Structures in Complexity Theory Conf., 1990, 30–44.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Babai andP. Erdős, Representation of group elements as short products,Annals of Discrete Mathematics 12 (1982), 27–30.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Babai andL. Fortnow, Arithmetization: a new method in structural complexity theory,Computational Complexity 1 (1991), 41–66. (Preliminary version appeared as: A characterization of #P by arithmetic straight line programs, inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1990, 26–34.)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Babai, L. Fortnow, L. Levin, and M. Szegedy, Checking computations in polylogarithmic time, in:Proc 23rd ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1991, to appear.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Babai, L. Fortnow, and C. Lund, Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols (extended abstract),Proc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Found. Comp. Sci., 1990, 16–25.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    L. Babai and P. Frankl,Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, I, Preliminary Version, University of Chicago, Dept. C. S. 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Beaver and J. Feigenbaum, Hiding instances in multioracle queries, inProc. 7th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Comp. Sci. Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 415 (1990), 37–48.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Ben-Or, S. Goldwasser, J. Kilian, and A. Wigderson, Multiprover interactive proofs: How to remove the intractability assumptions, inProc. 20th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1988, 113–131.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Blum and S. Kannan, Designing programs that check their work, inProc. 21st Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1989, 86–97.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Blum, M. Luby, and R. Rubinfeld, Self-testing and self-correcting programs, with applications to numerical programs, inProc. 22nd Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1990, 73–83.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    L. Babai andS. Moran, Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system, and a hierarchy of complexity classes.J. Comp. Sys. Sci. 36 (1988), 254–276.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Cai, PSPACE is provable by two provers in one round, manuscript, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. A. Cook, The complexity of theorem proving procedures, inProc. 3rd Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing 1971, 151–158.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    U. Feige, S. Goldwasser, L. Lovász, and S. Safra, On the complexity of clique approximation, in preparation.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    P. Feldman, The Optimum Prover lives inPSPACE, manuscript, 1986.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    L. Fortnow, The Complexity of Perfect Zero-Knowledge, In S. Micali, ed.,Randomness and Computation, Advances in Computing Research 5 (1989), 327–343.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    L. Fortnow, Complexity-Theoretic Aspects of Interactive Proof Systems, Ph.D. Thesis,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Computer Science, Tech. Report MIT/LCS/TR-447 1989.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    L. Fortnow, J. Rompel, and M. Sipser, On the power of multiprover interactive protocols,Proc. 3rd Structure in Complexity Theory Conf., 1988, 156–161.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    L. Fortnow andM. Sipser, Are there interactive protocols for co-NP languages?,Inf. Process. Letters 28 (1988), 249–251.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, andC. Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proofs,SIAM J. Comput. 18 (1989), 186–208. (Preliminary version appeared inProc. 18th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1985, 291–304.)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Hartmanis, N. Immerman, andV. Sewelson, Sparse sets inNP-P: EXPTIME versusNEXPTIME, Inf. and Control 65 (1985), 158–181.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    H. Heller On Relativized Exponential and Probabilistic Complexity Classes,Information and Computation 71 (1986), 231–243.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    R. Karp, R. Lipton, Some Connections between Nonuniform and Uniform Complexity Classes,Proc. 12th Ann. ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 1980, 302–309.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    L. Levin, Universal'nyîe perebornyîe zadachi (Universal search problems, in Russian),Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 9 (1973), 265–266. A corrected English translation appears in an appendix to Trakhtenbrot [39].Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    R. Lipton, New directions in testing, inProceedings of the DIMACS Workshop on Distributed Computing and Cryptography, 1989, to appear.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    C. Lund, L. Fortnow, H. Karloff, and N. Nisan, Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems, inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1990, 1–10.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    P. Orponen, Complexity Classes of Alternating Machines with Oracles,Proc. 10th ICALP, Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci. 154 (1983), 573–584.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    C. Papadimitriou, Games against Nature,Proc. 24th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1983, 446–450.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    G. Peterson and J. Reif, Multiple-person alternation,Proc. 20th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1979, 348–363.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    M. Santha, Relativized Arthur-Merlin versus Merlin-Arthur games,Inf. and Computation 80 (1989), 44–49.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J. Seiferas, M. Fischer, andA. Meyer, Separating Nondeterministic Time Complexity ClassesJ. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 25 (1978), 146–167.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    A. Shamir, IP=PSPACE, inProc. 31st Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1990, 11–15.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. Simon, On Some Central Problems in Computational Complexity, Ph.D. Thesis,Cornell University, Computer Science, Tech. Report TR 74-224, 1975.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. T. Schwartz, Fast probabilistic algorithms for verification of polynomial identities,J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 27 (1980), 701–717.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    M. Szegedy, EfficientMIP protocol and a stronger condition on clique approximation, in preparation.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    B. A. Trakhtenbrot, A survey of Russian approaches toPerebor (brute-force search) algorithms,Annals of the History of Computing 6 (1984), 384–400.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    S. Toda, On the computational power ofPP and ⊕P, inProc. 30th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations of Comp. Sci., 1989, 514–519.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    L. Valiant, The complexity of computing the permanent,Theoretical Computer Science 8 (1979), 189–201.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    L. Valiant, V. Vazirani,N P is as Easy as Detecting Unique Solutions,Theoretical Computer Science 47 (1986), 85–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Babai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lance Fortnow
    • 4
  • Carsten Lund
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Eötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ChicagoChicago
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ChicagoChicago

Personalised recommendations