A Randomized Algorithm for BBCSPs in the Prover-Verifier Model

In this paper we introduce a Prover-Verifier model for analyzing the computational complexity of a class of Constraint Satisfaction problems termed Binary Boolean Constraint Satisfaction problems (BBCSPs). BBCSPs represent an extremely general class of constraint satisfaction problems and find applications in a wide variety of domains including constraint programming, puzzle solving and program testing. We establish that each instance of a BBCSP admits a coin-flipping Turing Machine that halts in time polynomial in the size of the input. The prover P in the Prover-Verifier model is endowed with very limited powers; in particular, it has no memory and it can only pose restricted queries to the verifier. The verifier on the other hand is both omniscient in that it is cognizant of all the problem details and insincere in that it does not have to decide a priori on the intended proof. However, the verifier must stay consistent in its responses. Inasmuch as our provers will be memoryless and our verifiers will be asked for extremely simple certificates, our work establishes the existence of a simple, randomized algorithm for BBCSPs. Our model itself serves as a basis for the design of zero-knowledge machine learning algorithms in that the prover ends up learning the proof desired by the verifier.

[1]  K. Subramani,et al.  Totally Clairvoyant Scheduling with Relative Timing Constraints , 2006, VMCAI.

[2]  C.H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On selecting a satisfying truth assignment , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[3]  K. Subramani,et al.  An Analysis of Totally Clairvoyant Scheduling , 2005, J. Sched..

[4]  Kousha Etessami,et al.  Analysis of Recursive Game Graphs Using Data Flow Equations , 2004, VMCAI.

[5]  Alexander Aiken,et al.  Introduction to Set Constraint-Based Program Analysis , 1999, Sci. Comput. Program..

[6]  Nicolas Barnier,et al.  Solving the Kirkman's schoolgirl problem in a few seconds , 2002 .

[7]  K. SUBRAMANI,et al.  Cascading random walks , 2005, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[8]  Armin Biere,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2006, 9th International Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, August 12-15, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, SAT.

[9]  Rajeev Alur,et al.  A Temporal Logic of Nested Calls and Returns , 2004, TACAS.

[10]  Larry Wos,et al.  What Is Automated Reasoning? , 1987, J. Autom. Reason..

[11]  Hans Schlenker,et al.  Towards a More General Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Framework: Intensional vs. Extensional Constraint Representation , 2000, WLP.

[12]  Natarajan Shankar,et al.  The ICS Decision Procedures for Embedded Deduction , 2004, IJCAR.

[13]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Programming with Constraints: An Introduction , 1998 .

[14]  Karem A. Sakallah,et al.  From Propositional Satisfiability to Satisfiability Modulo Theories , 2006, SAT.

[15]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  A randomized linear-time algorithm to find minimum spanning trees , 1995, JACM.

[16]  K. Subramani,et al.  An Analysis of Zero-Clairvoyant Scheduling , 2002, TACAS.

[17]  Bart Selman,et al.  Accelerating Random Walks , 2002, CP.

[18]  Uwe Schöning,et al.  New Algorithms for k -SAT Based on the Local Search Principle , 2001, MFCS.

[19]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Randomized algorithms , 1996, CSUR.

[20]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  A Linear-Time Algorithm for Testing the Truth of Certain Quantified Boolean Formulas , 1979, Inf. Process. Lett..

[21]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A theory of the learnable , 1984, STOC '84.