Paper detail

Redundancy in Distributed Proofs

Distributed proofs are mechanisms enabling the nodes of a network to collectivity and efficiently check the correctness of Boolean predicates on the structure of the network, or on data-structures distributed over the nodes (e.g., spanning trees or routing tables). We consider mechanisms consisting of two components: a \emph{prover} assigning a \emph{certificate} to each node, and a distributed algorithm called \emph{verifier} that is in charge of verifying the distributed proof formed by the collection of all certificates. In this paper, we show that many network predicates have distributed proofs offering a high level of redundancy, explicitly or implicitly. We use this remarkable property of distributed proofs for establishing perfect tradeoffs between the \emph{size of the certificate} stored at every node, and the \emph{number of rounds} of the verification protocol. If we allow every node to communicate to distance at most $t$, one might expect that the certificate sizes can be reduced by a multiplicative factor of at least~$t$. In trees, cycles and grids, we show that such tradeoffs can be established for \emph{all} network predicates, i.e., it is always possible to linearly decrease the certificate size. In arbitrary graphs, we show that any part of the certificates common to all nodes can be evenly redistributed among these nodes, achieving even a better tradeoff: this common part of the certificate can be reduced by the size of a smallest ball of radius $t$ in the network. In addition to these general results, we establish several upper and lower bounds on the certificate sizes used for distributed proofs for spanning trees, minimum-weight spanning trees, diameter, additive and multiplicative spanners, and more, improving and generalizing previous results from the literature.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.