The Power of Distributed Verifiers in Interactive Proofs

We explore the power of interactive proofs with a distributed verifier. In this setting, the verifier consists of $n$ nodes and a graph $G$ that defines their communication pattern. The prover is a single entity that communicates with all nodes by short messages. The goal is to verify that the graph $G$ belongs to some language in a small number of rounds, and with small communication bound, i.e., the proof size. This interactive model was introduced by Kol, Oshman and Saxena (PODC 2018) as a generalization of non-interactive distributed proofs. They demonstrated the power of interaction in this setting by constructing protocols for problems as Graph Symmetry and Graph Non-Isomorphism -- both of which require proofs of $\Omega(n^2)$-bits without interaction. In this work, we provide a new general framework for distributed interactive proofs that allows one to translate standard interactive protocols to ones where the verifier is distributed with short proof size. We show the following: * Every (centralized) computation that can be performed in time $O(n)$ can be translated into three-round distributed interactive protocol with $O(\log n)$ proof size. This implies that many graph problems for sparse graphs have succinct proofs. * Every (centralized) computation implemented by either a small space or by uniform NC circuit can be translated into a distributed protocol with $O(1)$ rounds and $O(\log n)$ bits proof size for the low space case and $polylog(n)$ many rounds and proof size for NC. * We show that for Graph Non-Isomorphism, there is a 4-round protocol with $O(\log n)$ proof size, improving upon the $O(n \log n)$ proof size of Kol et al. * For many problems we show how to reduce proof size below the naturally seeming barrier of $\log n$. We get a 5-round protocols with proof size $O(\log \log n)$ for a family of problems.

[1]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  The Landscape of Communication Complexity Classes , 2018, computational complexity.

[2]  Richard Ryan Williams,et al.  Strong ETH Breaks With Merlin and Arthur: Short Non-Interactive Proofs of Batch Evaluation , 2016, CCC.

[3]  Oded Goldreich,et al.  Universal arguments and their applications , 2002, Proceedings 17th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity.

[4]  Shay Kutten,et al.  Proof labeling schemes , 2005, PODC '05.

[5]  Silvio Micali,et al.  Proofs that yield nothing but their validity or all languages in NP have zero-knowledge proof systems , 1991, JACM.

[6]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Algebrization: A New Barrier in Complexity Theory , 2009, TOCT.

[7]  D. Boneh,et al.  Interactive proofs of proximity: delegating computation in sublinear time , 2013, STOC '13.

[8]  Amos Fiat,et al.  How to Prove Yourself: Practical Solutions to Identification and Signature Problems , 1986, CRYPTO.

[9]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Efficient Planarity Testing , 1974, JACM.

[10]  Peter Frankl,et al.  Complexity classes in communication complexity theory (preliminary version) , 1986, IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[11]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems , 1990, Proceedings [1990] 31st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[12]  Omer Paneth,et al.  On Publicly Verifiable Delegation From Standard Assumptions , 2018, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[13]  Ron Rothblum,et al.  Non-interactive proofs of proximity , 2015, computational complexity.

[14]  László Babai,et al.  Arthur-Merlin Games: A Randomized Proof System, and a Hierarchy of Complexity Classes , 1988, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[15]  Rafail Ostrovsky,et al.  Cryptography with constant computational overhead , 2008, STOC.

[16]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Randomized Proof-Labeling Schemes , 2015, PODC.

[17]  Shafi Goldwasser,et al.  Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems , 1986, STOC '86.

[18]  Pierre Fraigniaud,et al.  On the Impact of Identifiers on Local Decision , 2012, OPODIS.

[19]  Pierre Fraigniaud,et al.  A hierarchy of local decision , 2016, ICALP.

[20]  Pierre Fraigniaud,et al.  Local Distributed Decision , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[21]  Silvio Micali,et al.  Computationally Sound Proofs , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Yael Tauman Kalai,et al.  Delegating computation: interactive proofs for muggles , 2008, STOC.

[23]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  Constant-Round Interactive Proofs for Delegating Computation , 2016, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[24]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Monotone circuits for connectivity require super-logarithmic depth , 1990, STOC '88.

[25]  Pierre Fraigniaud,et al.  Redundancy in distributed proofs , 2018, Distributed Computing.

[26]  Shay Kutten,et al.  Distributed verification of minimum spanning trees , 2006, PODC '06.

[27]  Silvio Micali,et al.  The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems , 1985, STOC '85.

[28]  Mika Göös,et al.  Locally Checkable Proofs in Distributed Computing , 2016, Theory Comput..

[29]  Ron Rothblum,et al.  Fiat-Shamir From Simpler Assumptions , 2018, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[30]  Leonid A. Levin,et al.  Checking computations in polylogarithmic time , 1991, STOC '91.

[31]  Anne Condon,et al.  The Complexity of Space Boundes Interactive Proof Systems , 1993, Complexity Theory: Current Research.

[32]  Joe Kilian,et al.  A note on efficient zero-knowledge proofs and arguments (extended abstract) , 1992, STOC '92.

[33]  Moti Yung,et al.  The Local Detection Paradigm and Its Application to Self-Stabilization , 1997, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[34]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  Finite state verifiers I: the power of interaction , 1992, JACM.

[35]  Gillat Kol,et al.  Interactive Distributed Proofs , 2018, PODC.