Paper detail

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.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.