Shared Versus Private Randomness in Distributed Interactive Proofs

IF 0.9 4区 计算机科学 Q4 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Pedro Montealegre, Diego Ramírez-Romero, Ivan Rapaport
{"title":"Shared Versus Private Randomness in Distributed Interactive Proofs","authors":"Pedro Montealegre,&nbsp;Diego Ramírez-Romero,&nbsp;Ivan Rapaport","doi":"10.1007/s00453-024-01288-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In distributed interactive proofs, the nodes of a graph G interact with a powerful but untrustable prover who tries to convince them, in a small number of rounds and through short messages, that G satisfies some property. This series of rounds is followed by a phase of distributed verification, which may be either deterministic or randomized, where nodes exchange messages with their neighbors. The nature of this last verification round defines the two types of interactive protocols. We say that the protocol is of Arthur–Merlin type if the verification round is deterministic. We say that the protocol is of Merlin–Arthur type if, in the verification round, the nodes are allowed to use a fresh set of random bits. In the original model introduced by Kol, Oshman, and Saxena [PODC 2018], the randomness was private in the sense that each node had only access to an individual source of random coins. Crescenzi, Fraigniaud, and Paz [DISC 2019] initiated the study of the impact of shared randomness (the situation where the coin tosses are visible to all nodes) in the distributed interactive model. In this work, we continue that research line by showing that the impact of the two forms of randomness is very different depending on whether we are considering Arthur–Merlin protocols or Merlin–Arthur protocols. While private randomness gives more power to the first type of protocols, shared randomness provides more power to the second. We also show that there exists at most an exponential gap between the certificate size in distributed interactive proofs with respect to distributed verification protocols without any randomness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50824,"journal":{"name":"Algorithmica","volume":"87 3","pages":"377 - 404"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Algorithmica","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00453-024-01288-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In distributed interactive proofs, the nodes of a graph G interact with a powerful but untrustable prover who tries to convince them, in a small number of rounds and through short messages, that G satisfies some property. This series of rounds is followed by a phase of distributed verification, which may be either deterministic or randomized, where nodes exchange messages with their neighbors. The nature of this last verification round defines the two types of interactive protocols. We say that the protocol is of Arthur–Merlin type if the verification round is deterministic. We say that the protocol is of Merlin–Arthur type if, in the verification round, the nodes are allowed to use a fresh set of random bits. In the original model introduced by Kol, Oshman, and Saxena [PODC 2018], the randomness was private in the sense that each node had only access to an individual source of random coins. Crescenzi, Fraigniaud, and Paz [DISC 2019] initiated the study of the impact of shared randomness (the situation where the coin tosses are visible to all nodes) in the distributed interactive model. In this work, we continue that research line by showing that the impact of the two forms of randomness is very different depending on whether we are considering Arthur–Merlin protocols or Merlin–Arthur protocols. While private randomness gives more power to the first type of protocols, shared randomness provides more power to the second. We also show that there exists at most an exponential gap between the certificate size in distributed interactive proofs with respect to distributed verification protocols without any randomness.

分布式交互式证明中的共享与私有随机性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Algorithmica
Algorithmica 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
158
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Algorithmica is an international journal which publishes theoretical papers on algorithms that address problems arising in practical areas, and experimental papers of general appeal for practical importance or techniques. The development of algorithms is an integral part of computer science. The increasing complexity and scope of computer applications makes the design of efficient algorithms essential. Algorithmica covers algorithms in applied areas such as: VLSI, distributed computing, parallel processing, automated design, robotics, graphics, data base design, software tools, as well as algorithms in fundamental areas such as sorting, searching, data structures, computational geometry, and linear programming. In addition, the journal features two special sections: Application Experience, presenting findings obtained from applications of theoretical results to practical situations, and Problems, offering short papers presenting problems on selected topics of computer science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信