Results 1  10
of
4,706
The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems

, 1989
"... Usually, a proof of a theorem contains more knowledge than the mere fact that the theorem is true. For instance, to prove that a graph is Hamiltonian it suffices to exhibit a Hamiltonian tour in it; however, this seems to contain more knowledge than the single bit Hamiltonian/nonHamiltonian. In th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1246 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Usually, a proof of a theorem contains more knowledge than the mere fact that the theorem is true. For instance, to prove that a graph is Hamiltonian it suffices to exhibit a Hamiltonian tour in it; however, this seems to contain more knowledge than the single bit Hamiltonian
Algebraic Methods for Interactive Proof Systems
, 1990
"... We present a new algebraic technique for the construction of interactive proof systems. We use our technique to prove that every language in the polynomialtime hierarchy has an interactive proof system. This technique played a pivotal role in the recent proofs that IP=PSPACE (Shamir) and that MIP ..."
Abstract

Cited by 338 (28 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a new algebraic technique for the construction of interactive proof systems. We use our technique to prove that every language in the polynomialtime hierarchy has an interactive proof system. This technique played a pivotal role in the recent proofs that IP=PSPACE (Shamir
INTERACTIVE PROOFS
"... Abstract. These are notes from a Mathtable talk I gave. You and I share two large graphs. Waving my magic wand, I discover that they are not isomorphic and rush to tell you. You don’t believe me and demand proof; however, as a busy undergraduate, you insist that the proof be verifiable in polynomial ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
in that if I lie, you’ll probably detect it. Moreover, with such ”interactive proofs ” I can efficiently convince you of the right answer for a large class of computationally difficult problems. I will attempt to convince you of this 1992 result; random bits not required. 1.
Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques
 JOURNAL OF THE ACM
, 1996
"... The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, a connection is shown between approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph and multiprover interactive proofs. Second, an efficient multiprover interactive proof for NP languages is constructed, where the verifier uses very few random b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 170 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, a connection is shown between approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph and multiprover interactive proofs. Second, an efficient multiprover interactive proof for NP languages is constructed, where the verifier uses very few random
Interactive Coding for Interactive Proofs
"... We consider interactive proof systems over adversarial communication channels. We show that the seminal result that IP = PSPACE still holds when the communication channel is malicious, allowing even a constant fraction of the communication to be arbitrarily corrupted. 1 ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We consider interactive proof systems over adversarial communication channels. We show that the seminal result that IP = PSPACE still holds when the communication channel is malicious, allowing even a constant fraction of the communication to be arbitrarily corrupted. 1
Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles
 In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC
, 2008
"... In this work we study interactive proofs for tractable languages. The (honest) prover should be efficient and run in polynomial time, or in other words a “muggle”. 1 The verifier should be superefficient and run in nearlylinear time. These proof systems can be used for delegating computation: a se ..."
Abstract

Cited by 113 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this work we study interactive proofs for tractable languages. The (honest) prover should be efficient and run in polynomial time, or in other words a “muggle”. 1 The verifier should be superefficient and run in nearlylinear time. These proof systems can be used for delegating computation: a
NonInteractive Proofs of Proximity
, 2013
"... We initiate a study of noninteractive proofs of proximity. These proofsystems consist of a verifier that wishes to ascertain the validity of a given statement, using a short (sublinear length) explicitly given proof, and a sublinear number of queries to its input. Since the verifier cannot even re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We initiate a study of noninteractive proofs of proximity. These proofsystems consist of a verifier that wishes to ascertain the validity of a given statement, using a short (sublinear length) explicitly given proof, and a sublinear number of queries to its input. Since the verifier cannot even
A Framework for Interactive Proof
"... Abstract. This paper introduces Proof General Kit, a framework for software components tailored to interactive proof development. The goal of the framework is to enable flexible environments for managing formal proofs across their lifecycle: creation, maintenance and exploitation. The framework con ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. This paper introduces Proof General Kit, a framework for software components tailored to interactive proof development. The goal of the framework is to enable flexible environments for managing formal proofs across their lifecycle: creation, maintenance and exploitation. The framework
Interactive Proof: Applications to Semantics
"... Abstract. Building on a previous lecture in the summer school, the introduction to interactive proof, this lecture demonstrates a specific application of interactive proof assistants: the semantics of programming languages. In particular, I show how to formalise a small imperative programming langua ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Building on a previous lecture in the summer school, the introduction to interactive proof, this lecture demonstrates a specific application of interactive proof assistants: the semantics of programming languages. In particular, I show how to formalise a small imperative programming
On the complexity of space bounded interactive proofs
, 2005
"... We prove two results on interactive proof systems with 2way probabilistic finite state verifiers. The first is a lower bound on the power of such proof systems, if they are not required to halt with high probability on rejected inputs: we show that they can accept any recursively enumerable languag ..."
Abstract

Cited by 78 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove two results on interactive proof systems with 2way probabilistic finite state verifiers. The first is a lower bound on the power of such proof systems, if they are not required to halt with high probability on rejected inputs: we show that they can accept any recursively enumerable
Results 1  10
of
4,706