BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Rafael Pass

Rafael Pass contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer Science and Game TheoryComputational ComplexityLogic in Computer ScienceArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and SecurityData Structures and AlgorithmsDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
17works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

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

17 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Communication Complexity of Byzantine Agreement, Revisited

As Byzantine Agreement (BA) protocols find application in large-scale decentralized cryptocurrencies, an increasingly important problem is to design BA protocols with improved communication complexity. A few existing works have shown how to achieve subquadratic BA under an {\it adaptive} adversary. Intriguingly, they all make a common relaxation about the adaptivity of the attacker, that is, if an honest node sends a message and then gets corrupted in some round, the adversary {\it cannot erase the message that was already sent} --- henceforth we say that such an adversary cannot perform "after-the-fact removal". By contrast, many (super-)quadratic BA protocols in the literature can tolerate after-the-fact removal. In this paper, we first prove that disallowing after-the-fact removal is necessary for achieving subquadratic-communication BA. Next, we show new subquadratic binary BA constructions (of course, assuming no after-the-fact removal) that achieves near-optimal resilience and expected constant rounds under standard cryptographic assumptions and a public-key infrastructure (PKI) in both synchronous and partially synchronous settings. In comparison, all known subquadratic protocols make additional strong assumptions such as random oracles or the ability of honest nodes to erase secrets from memory, and even with these strong assumptions, no prior work can achieve the above properties. Lastly, we show that some setup assumption is necessary for achieving subquadratic multicast-based BA.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Is it Easier to Prove Theorems that are Guaranteed to be True?

Consider the following two fundamental open problems in complexity theory: (a) Does a hard-on-average language in NP imply the existence of one-way functions?, or (b) Does a hard-on-average language in NP imply a hard-on-average problem in TFNP (i.e., the class of total NP search problem)? Our main result is that the answer to (at least) one of these questions is yes. Both one-way functions and problems in TFNP can be interpreted as promise-true distributional NP search problems---namely, distributional search problems where the sampler only samples true statements. As a direct corollary of the above result, we thus get that the existence of a hard-on-average distributional NP search problem implies a hard-on-average promise-true distributional NP search problem. In other words, "It is no easier to find witnesses (a.k.a. proofs) for efficiently-sampled statements (theorems) that are guaranteed to be true." This result follows from a more general study of interactive puzzles---a generalization of average-case hardness in NP---and in particular, a novel round-collapse theorem for computationally-sound protocols, analogous to Babai-Moran's celebrated round-collapse theorem for information-theoretically sound protocols. As another consequence of this treatment, we show that the existence of O(1)-round public-coin non-trivial arguments (i.e., argument systems that are not proofs) imply the existence of a hard-on-average problem in NP/poly.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Bayesian Games with Intentions

We show that standard Bayesian games cannot represent the full spectrum of belief-dependent preferences. However, by introducing a fundamental distinction between intended and actual strategies, we remove this limitation. We define Bayesian games with intentions, generalizing both Bayesian games and psychological games, and prove that Nash equilibria in psychological games correspond to a special class of equilibria as defined in our setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Computational Extensive-Form Games

We define solution concepts appropriate for computationally bounded players playing a fixed finite game. To do so, we need to define what it means for a \emph{computational game}, which is a sequence of games that get larger in some appropriate sense, to represent a single finite underlying extensive-form game. Roughly speaking, we require all the games in the sequence to have essentially the same structure as the underlying game, except that two histories that are indistinguishable (i.e., in the same information set) in the underlying game may correspond to histories that are only computationally indistinguishable in the computational game. We define a computational version of both Nash equilibrium and sequential equilibrium for computational games, and show that every Nash (resp., sequential) equilibrium in the underlying game corresponds to a computational Nash (resp., sequential) equilibrium in the computational game. One advantage of our approach is that if a cryptographic protocol represents an abstract game, then we can analyze its strategic behavior in the abstract game, and thus separate the cryptographic analysis of the protocol from the strategic analysis.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

On the Non-Existence of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Resource-Bounded Players

We consider sequences of games $\mathcal{G}=\{G_1,G_2,\ldots\}$ where, for all $n$, $G_n$ has the same set of players. Such sequences arise in the analysis of running time of players in games, in electronic money systems such as Bitcoin and in cryptographic protocols. Assuming that one-way functions exist, we prove that there is a sequence of 2-player zero-sum Bayesian games $\mathcal{G}$ such that, for all $n$, the size of every action in $G_n$ is polynomial in $n$, the utility function is polynomial computable in $n$, and yet there is no polynomial-time Nash equilibrium, where we use a notion of Nash equilibrium that is tailored to sequences of games. We also demonstrate that Nash equilibrium may not exist when considering players that are constrained to perform at most $T$ computational steps in each of the games $\{G_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$. These examples may shed light on competitive settings where the availability of more running time or faster algorithms lead to a "computational arms race", precluding the existence of equilibrium. They also point to inherent limitations of concepts such "best response" and Nash equilibrium in games with resource-bounded players.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Stronger Impossibility Results for Strategy-Proof Voting with i.i.d. Beliefs

The classic Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem says that every strategy-proof voting rule with at least three possible candidates must be dictatorial. In \cite{McL11}, McLennan showed that a similar impossibility result holds even if we consider a weaker notion of strategy-proofness where voters believe that the other voters' preferences are i.i.d.~(independent and identically distributed): If an anonymous voting rule (with at least three candidates) is strategy-proof w.r.t.~all i.i.d.~beliefs and is also Pareto efficient, then the voting rule must be a random dictatorship. In this paper, we strengthen McLennan's result by relaxing Pareto efficiency to $ε$-Pareto efficiency where Pareto efficiency can be violated with probability $ε$, and we further relax $ε$-Pareto efficiency to a very weak notion of efficiency which we call $ε$-super-weak unanimity. We then show the following: If an anonymous voting rule (with at least three candidates) is strategy-proof w.r.t.~all i.i.d.~beliefs and also satisfies $ε$-super-weak unanimity, then the voting rule must be $O(ε)$-close to random dictatorship.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Truth Behind the Myth of the Folk Theorem

We study the problem of computing an $ε$-Nash equilibrium in repeated games. Earlier work by Borgs et al. [2010] suggests that this problem is intractable. We show that if we make a slight change to their model---modeling the players as polynomial-time Turing machines that maintain state ---and make some standard cryptographic hardness assumptions (the existence of public-key encryption), the problem can actually be solved in polynomial time. Our algorithm works not only for games with a finite number of players, but also for constant-degree graphical games. As Nash equilibrium is a weak solution concept for extensive form games, we additionally define and study an appropriate notion of a subgame-perfect equilibrium for computationally bounded players, and show how to efficiently find such an equilibrium in repeated games (again, making standard cryptographic hardness assumptions).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Voting with Coarse Beliefs

The classic Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem says that every strategy-proof voting rule with at least three possible candidates must be dictatorial. Similar impossibility results hold even if we consider a weaker notion of strategy-proofness where voters believe that the other voters' preferences are i.i.d.~(independent and identically distributed). In this paper, we take a bounded-rationality approach to this problem and consider a setting where voters have "coarse" beliefs (a notion that has gained popularity in the behavioral economics literature). In particular, we construct good voting rules that satisfy a notion of strategy-proofness with respect to coarse i.i.d.~beliefs, thus circumventing the above impossibility results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Algorithmic Rationality: Game Theory with Costly Computation

We develop a general game-theoretic framework for reasoning about strategic agents performing possibly costly computation. In this framework, many traditional game-theoretic results (such as the existence of a Nash equilibrium) no longer hold. Nevertheless, we can use the framework to provide psychologically appealing explanations of observed behavior in well-studied games (such as finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma and rock-paper-scissors). Furthermore, we provide natural conditions on games sufficient to guarantee that equilibria exist.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Sequential Equilibrium in Computational Games

We examine sequential equilibrium in the context of computational games, where agents are charged for computation. In such games, an agent can rationally choose to forget, so issues of imperfect recall arise. In this setting, we consider two notions of sequential equilibrium. One is an ex ante notion, where a player chooses his strategy before the game starts and is committed to it, but chooses it in such a way that it remains optimal even off the equilibrium path. The second is an interim notion, where a player can reconsider at each information set whether he is doing the "right" thing, and if not, can change his strategy. The two notions agree in games of perfect recall, but not in games of imperfect recall. Although the interim notion seems more appealing, \fullv{Halpern and Pass [2011] argue that there are some deep conceptual problems with it in standard games of imperfect recall. We show that the conceptual problems largely disappear in the computational setting. Moreover, in this setting, under natural assumptions, the two notions coincide.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Decision Theory with Resource-Bounded Agents

There have been two major lines of research aimed at capturing resource-bounded players in game theory. The first, initiated by Rubinstein, charges an agent for doing costly computation; the second, initiated by Neyman, does not charge for computation, but limits the computation that agents can do, typically by modeling agents as finite automata. We review recent work on applying both approaches in the context of decision theory. For the first approach, we take the objects of choice in a decision problem to be Turing machines, and charge players for the ``complexity'' of the Turing machine chosen (e.g., its running time). This approach can be used to explain well-known phenomena like first-impression-matters biases (i.e., people tend to put more weight on evidence they hear early on) and belief polarization (two people with different prior beliefs, hearing the same evidence, can end up with diametrically opposed conclusions) as the outcomes of quite rational decisions. For the second approach, we model people as finite automata, and provide a simple algorithm that, on a problem that captures a number of settings of interest, provably performs optimally as the number of states in the automaton increases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Game Theory with Translucent Players

A traditional assumption in game theory is that players are opaque to one another---if a player changes strategies, then this change in strategies does not affect the choice of other players' strategies. In many situations this is an unrealistic assumption. We develop a framework for reasoning about games where the players may be translucent to one another; in particular, a player may believe that if she were to change strategies, then the other player would also change strategies. Translucent players may achieve significantly more efficient outcomes than opaque ones. Our main result is a characterization of strategies consistent with appropriate analogues of common belief of rationality. Common Counterfactual Belief of Rationality (CCBR) holds if (1) everyone is rational, (2) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational (i.e., all players i believe that everyone else would still be rational even if $i$ were to switch strategies), (3) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and so on. CCBR characterizes the set of strategies surviving iterated removal of minimax dominated strategies, where a strategy s for player i is minimax dominated by s' if the worst-case payoff for i using s' is better than the best possible payoff using s.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Game Theory with Translucent Players

A traditional assumption in game theory is that players are opaque to one another -- if a player changes strategies, then this change in strategies does not affect the choice of other players' strategies. In many situations this is an unrealistic assumption. We develop a framework for reasoning about games where the players may be translucent to one another; in particular, a player may believe that if she were to change strategies, then the other player would also change strategies. Translucent players may achieve significantly more efficient outcomes than opaque ones. Our main result is a characterization of strategies consistent with appropriate analogues of common belief of rationality. Common Counterfactual Belief of Rationality (CCBR) holds if (1) everyone is rational, (2) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational (i.e., all players i believe that everyone else would still be rational even if i were to switch strategies), (3) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and so on. CCBR characterizes the set of strategies surviving iterated removal of minimax dominated strategies: a strategy $σ_i$ is minimax dominated for i if there exists a strategy $σ'_i$ for i such that $\min_{μ'_{-i}} u_i(σ_i, μ_{-i}') > \max_{μ_{-i}} u_i(σ_i, μ_{-i})$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Language-based Games

We introduce language-based games, a generalization of psychological games [6] that can also capture reference-dependent preferences [7]. The idea is to extend the domain of the utility function to situations, maximal consistent sets in some language. The role of the underlying language in this framework is thus particularly critical. Of special interest are languages that can express only coarse beliefs [9]. Despite the expressive power of the approach, we show that it can describe games in a simple, natural way. Nash equilibrium and rationalizability are generalized to this setting; Nash equilibrium is shown not to exist in general, while the existence of rationalizable strategies is proved under mild conditions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

On the Power of Many One-Bit Provers

We study the class of languages, denoted by $\MIP[k, 1-ε, s]$, which have $k$-prover games where each prover just sends a \emph{single} bit, with completeness $1-ε$ and soundness error $s$. For the case that $k=1$ (i.e., for the case of interactive proofs), Goldreich, Vadhan and Wigderson ({\em Computational Complexity&#39;02}) demonstrate that $\SZK$ exactly characterizes languages having 1-bit proof systems with&#34;non-trivial&#34; soundness (i.e., $1/2 < s \leq 1-2ε$). We demonstrate that for the case that $k\geq 2$, 1-bit $k$-prover games exhibit a significantly richer structure: + (Folklore) When $s \leq \frac{1}{2^k} - ε$, $\MIP[k, 1-ε, s] = \BPP$; + When $\frac{1}{2^k} + ε\leq s < \frac{2}{2^k}-ε$, $\MIP[k, 1-ε, s] = \SZK$; + When $s \ge \frac{2}{2^k} + ε$, $\AM \subseteq \MIP[k, 1-ε, s]$; + For $s \le 0.62 k/2^k$ and sufficiently large $k$, $\MIP[k, 1-ε, s] \subseteq \EXP$; + For $s \ge 2k/2^{k}$, $\MIP[k, 1, 1-ε, s] = \NEXP$. As such, 1-bit $k$-prover games yield a natural &#34;quantitative&#34; approach to relating complexity classes such as $\BPP$,$\SZK$,$\AM$, $\EXP$, and $\NEXP$. We leave open the question of whether a more fine-grained hierarchy (between $\AM$ and $\NEXP$) can be established for the case when $s \geq \frac{2}{2^k} + ε$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Statistically-secure ORAM with $\tilde{O}(\log^2 n)$ Overhead

We demonstrate a simple, statistically secure, ORAM with computational overhead $\tilde{O}(\log^2 n)$; previous ORAM protocols achieve only computational security (under computational assumptions) or require $\tildeΩ(\log^3 n)$ overheard. An additional benefit of our ORAM is its conceptual simplicity, which makes it easy to implement in both software and (commercially available) hardware. Our construction is based on recent ORAM constructions due to Shi, Chan, Stefanov, and Li (Asiacrypt 2011) and Stefanov and Shi (ArXiv 2012), but with some crucial modifications in the algorithm that simplifies the ORAM and enable our analysis. A central component in our analysis is reducing the analysis of our algorithm to a &#34;supermarket&#34; problem; of independent interest (and of importance to our analysis,) we provide an upper bound on the rate of &#34;upset&#34; customers in the &#34;supermarket&#34; problem.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

I Don&#39;t Want to Think About it Now:Decision Theory With Costly Computation

Computation plays a major role in decision making. Even if an agent is willing to ascribe a probability to all states and a utility to all outcomes, and maximize expected utility, doing so might present serious computational problems. Moreover, computing the outcome of a given act might be difficult. In a companion paper we develop a framework for game theory with costly computation, where the objects of choice are Turing machines. Here we apply that framework to decision theory. We show how well-known phenomena like first-impression-matters biases (i.e., people tend to put more weight on evidence they hear early on), belief polarization (two people with different prior beliefs, hearing the same evidence, can end up with diametrically opposed conclusions), and the status quo bias (people are much more likely to stick with what they already have) can be easily captured in that framework. Finally, we use the framework to define some new notions: value of computational information (a computational variant of value of information) and and computational value of conversation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access