Paper detail

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.

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.