Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 98, Issue 4, pp 479–489 | Cite as

Probabilistic verification of proofs in calculuses

  • E. Ya. Dantsin
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

We define a special kind of a probabilistically checkable proof system, namely, probabilistically checkable proof calculuses (PCP calculuses). A proof in such a calculus can be verified with sufficient confidence by examining only one random path in the proof tree, without reading the whole proof. The verification procedure just checks all applications of inference rules along the path; its running time is assumed to be polynomial in the theorem length. It is shown that the deductive power of PCP calculuses is characterized as follows: (i) the decision problem for theorems is in PSPACE for all PCP calculuses; and (ii) the mentioned problem is PSPACE-hard for some of the calculuses. Bibliography: 14 titles.

Keywords

Running Time Decision Problem Special Kind Inference Rule Proof System 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Arora and C. Lund, “Hardness of approximation,” in: D. Hochbaum, editor,Approximation Algorithms for NP-Hard Problems, PWS Publishing Company, Boston (1997).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Arora and S. Safra, “Probabilistic checking of proofs: A new characterization of NP,” in:Proceedings of the 33rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1992), pp. 2–13.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Babai, “Transparent proofs and limits to approximation,” in:Proceedings of the First European Congress of Mathematicians, Paris, 1992,1, Birkhäuser Verlag (1994) pp. 31–92.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Babai, L. Fortnow, L.A. Levin, and M. Szegedy, “Checking computations in polylogarithmic time,” in:Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (1991), pp. 21–31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Babai, L. Fortnow, and C. Lund, “Nondeterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols,”Comput. Complexity,1(1), 3–40 (1991).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Dantsin, “Randomized proofs in arithmetic,”Zap. Nauchn. Semin. POMI,220, 49–71 (1995).MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Dantsin, “A logic-style version of interactive proofs,”UPMAIL Technical Report No. 124, Computing Science Department, Uppsala University, March 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Goldreich, “A taxonomy of proof systems,” in: L. A. Hemaspaandra and A. Selman, editors,Complexity Theory Retrospective II (1996).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Lund, L. Fortnow, H. Karloff, and N. Nisan, “Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems,”J ACM,39(4), 859–868 (1992).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Mendelson,Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Van Nostrand (1964).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Motwani and P. Raghavan,Randomized Algorithms, Cambridge University Press (1995).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Papadimitriou,Computational Complexity, Addison-Wesley (1994).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Shamir, “IP=PSPACE,”J. ACM,39(4), 869–877 (1992).CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Shen, “IP=PSPACE: Simplified proof,”J. ACM,39(4), 878–880 (1992).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Ya. Dantsin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations