MFCS 2008: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2008 pp 229-240 | Cite as
Arthur and Merlin as Oracles
Abstract
We study some problems solvable in deterministic polynomial time given oracle access to the promise version of the Arthur-Merlin class AM. The main result is that \({{\rm BPP}^{\rm NP}_{||}} \subseteq {{\rm P}^{{{\rm pr}{\rm AM}}}_{||}}\). An important property of the class \({{\rm P}^{{{\rm pr}{\rm AM}}}_{||}}\) is that it can be derandomized as \({{\rm P}^{{{\rm pr}{\rm AM}}}_{||}}={{\rm P}^{\rm NP}_{||}}\), under a natural hardness hypothesis used for derandomizing the class AM; this directly follows from a result due to Miltersen and Vinodchandran [10]. As a consequence, we get that \({{\rm BPP}^{{\rm NP}}_{||}} = {{\rm P}^{\rm NP}_{||}}\), under the above hypothesis. This gives an alternative (and perhaps, a simpler) proof of the same result obtained by Shaltiel and Umans [16], using different techniques.
Next, we present an FPprAM algorithm for finding near-optimal strategies of a succinctly presented zero-sum game. For the same problem, Fortnow et al. [7] described a ZPPNP algorithm. As a by product of our algorithm, we also get an alternative proof of the result by Fortnow et. al. One advantage with an FPprAM algorithm is that it can be directly derandomized using the Miltersen-Vinodchandran construction [10]. As a consequence, we get an FPNP algorithm for the above problem, under the hardness hypothesis used for derandomizing AM.
Keywords
Pure Strategy Boolean Circuit Membership Testing Approximate Counting Deterministic Polynomial TimePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Althöfer, I.: On sparse approximations to randomized strategies and convex combinations. Linear Algebra and its Applications 199 (1994)Google Scholar
- 2.Babai, L., Moran, S.: Arthur-Merlin games: A randomized proof system, and a hierarchy of complexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 36(2), 254–276 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 3.Cai, J.: \(\rm {S}_2^{\it p} \subseteq {ZPP}^{{NP}}\). Journal of Computer and System Sciences 73(1) (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.Chakaravarthy, V., Roy, S.: Finding irrefutable certificates for \({\rm S}_2^p\) via Arthur and Merlin. In: STACS (2008)Google Scholar
- 5.Du, D., Ko, K.: Computational Complexity. John Wiley, Chichester (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Feigenbaum, J., Koller, D., Shor, P.: A game-theoretic classification of interactive complexity classes. In: CCC (1995)Google Scholar
- 7.Fortnow, L., Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., Umans, C.: On the complexity of succinct zero-sum games. In: CCC (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.Klivans, A., van Melkebeek, D.: Graph nonisomorphism has subexponential size proofs unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses. SIAM Journal on Computing 31(5), 1501–1526 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lipton, R., Young, N.: Simple strategies for large zero-sum games with applications to complexity theory. In: STOC (1994)Google Scholar
- 10.Miltersen, P., Vinodchandran, N.: Derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games using hitting sets. In: FOCS (1999)Google Scholar
- 11.Neumann, J.: Zur theorie der gesellschaftspiel. Mathematische Annalen 100 (1928)Google Scholar
- 12.Newman, J.: Private vs. common random bits in communication complexity. Information Processing Letters 39, 67–71 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 13.Nisan, N., Wigderson, A.: Hardness vs randomness. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 49(2), 149–167 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 14.Owen, G.: Game Theory. Academic Press, London (1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 15.Papadimitriou, C.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 16.Shaltiel, R., Umans, C.: Pseudorandomness for approximate counting and sampling. Computational Complexity 15(4), 298–341 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 17.Sipser, M.: A complexity theoretic approach to randomness. In: STOC (1983)Google Scholar
- 18.Stockmeyer, L.: The complexity of approximate counting. In: STOC (1983)Google Scholar