Researcher profile

H. Gökalp Demirci

H. Gökalp Demirci contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - Baseline
3works
0followers
3topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

Debates with small transparent quantum verifiers

We study a model where two opposing provers debate over the membership status of a given string in a language, trying to convince a weak verifier whose coins are visible to all. We show that the incorporation of just two qubits to an otherwise classical constant-space verifier raises the class of debatable languages from at most $\mathsf{NP}$ to the collection of all Turing-decidable languages (recursive languages). When the verifier is further constrained to make the correct decision with probability 1, the corresponding class goes up from the regular languages up to at least $\mathsf{E}$. We also show that the quantum model outperforms its classical counterpart when restricted to run in polynomial time, and demonstrate some non-context-free languages which have such short debates with quantum verifiers.

preprint2012arXiv

Checking generalized debates with small space and randomness

We introduce a model of probabilistic debate checking, where a silent resource-bounded verifier reads a dialogue about the membership of the string in the language under consideration between a prover and a refuter. Our model combines and generalizes the concepts of one-way interactive proof systems, games of incomplete information, and probabilistically checkable complete-information debate systems. We consider debates of partial and zero information, where the prover is prevented from seeing some or all of the messages of the refuter, as well as those of complete information. The classes of languages with debates checkable by verifiers operating under severe bounds on the memory and randomness are studied. We give full characterizations of versions of these classes corresponding to simultaneous bounds of O(1) space and O(1) random bits, and of logarithmic space and polynomial time. It turns out that constant-space verifiers, which can only check complete-information debates for regular languages deterministically, can check for membership in any language in P when allowed to use a constant number of random bits. Similar increases also occur for zero- and partial- information debates, from NSPACE(n) to PSPACE, and from E to EXPTIME, respectively. Adding logarithmic space to these constant-randomness verifiers does not change their power. When logspace debate checkers are restricted to run in polynomial time without a bound on the number of random bits, the class of debatable languages equals PSPACE for all debate types. We also present a result on the hardness of approximating the quantified max word problem for matrices that is a corollary of this characterization.

preprint2012arXiv

Probabilistic verifiers for asymmetric debates

We examine the power of silent constant-space probabilistic verifiers that watch asymmetric debates (where one side is unable to see some of the messages of the other) between two deterministic provers, and try to determine who is right. We prove that probabilistic verifiers outperform their deterministic counterparts as asymmetric debate checkers. It is shown that the membership problem for every language in NSPACE(s(n)) has a 2^{s(n)}-time debate where one prover is completely blind to the other one, for polynomially bounded space constructible s(n). When partial information is allowed to be seen by the handicapped prover, the class of languages debatable in 2^{s(n)} time contains TIME(2^{s(n)}), so a probabilistic finite automaton can solve any decision problem in P with small error in polynomial time with the aid of such a debate. We also compare our systems with those with a single prover, and with competing-prover interactive proof systems.