Advertisement

Almost Transparent Short Proofs for NP

  • Klaus Meer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6914)

Abstract

We study probabilistically checkable proofs (PCPs) in the real number model of computation as introduced by Blum, Shub, and Smale. Our main result is NP = PCP(O(logn), polylog(n)), i.e., each decision problem in NP is accepted by a verifier that generates O(logn) many random bits and reads polylog(n) many proof components. This is the first non-trivial characterization of NP by real PCP-classes. As a byproduct this result implies as well a characterization of real nondeterministic exponential time via NEXP = PCP(poly(n), poly(n)).

Keywords

Polynomial System Univariate Polynomial Probabilistic Check Proof Logarithmic Number Real Number Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arora, S., Lund, C., Motwani, R., Sudan, M., Szegedy, M.: Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems. Journal of the ACM 45(3), 501–555 (1998); Preliminary version: Proc. 33rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 14–23 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora, S., Safra, S.: Probabilistic checking proofs: A new characterization of NP.. Journal of the ACM 45(1), 70–122 (1998); Preliminary version: Proc. of the 33rd Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 2–13 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ausiello, G., Crescenzi, P., Gambosi, G., Kann, V., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Protasi, M.: Complexity and Approximation: Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Their Approximability Properties. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babai, L., Fortnow, L., Lund, C.: Non-deterministic exponential time has two-prover interactive protocols. Computational Complexity 1, 3–40 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum, L., Cucker, F., Shub, M., Smale, S.: Complexity and Real Computation. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blum, L., Shub, M., Smale, S.: On a theory of computation and complexity over the real numbers: NP-completeness, recursive functions and universal machines. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 21, 1–46 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dinur, I.: The PCP theorem by gap amplification. Journal of the ACM 54(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedl, K., Hátsági, Z., Shen, A.: Low-degree tests. In: Proc. SODA, pp. 57–64 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lund, C., Fortnow, L., Karloff, H., Nisan, N.: Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. Journal of the ACM 39(4), 859–868 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meer, K.: Transparent long proofs: A first PCP theorem for NP. Foundations of Computational Mathematics 5(3), 231–255 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meer, K.: On some relations between approximation problems and PCPs over the real numbers. Theory of Computing Systems 41, 107–118 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubinfeld, R., Sudan, M.: Self-testing polynomial functions efficiently and over rational domains. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 23–32. ACM, Orlando (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Meer
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science InstituteBTU CottbusCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations