The Untold Story of \(\mathsf {SBP}\)

  • Ilya VolkovichEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12159)


In the seminal work of [4], Babai has introduced Arthur-Merlin Protocols and in particular the complexity classes \(\mathsf {MA}\) and \(\mathsf {AM}\) as randomized extensions of the class \(\mathsf {NP}\). While it is easy to see that \(\mathsf {NP}\subseteq \mathsf {MA}\subseteq \mathsf {AM}\), it has been a long standing open question whether these classes are actually different. In [5], Böhler et al. introduced the probabilistic class of \(\mathsf {SBP}\) and showed that \(\mathsf {MA}\subseteq \mathsf {SBP}\subseteq \mathsf {AM}\). Indeed, this is the only known natural complexity class that lies between \(\mathsf {MA}\) and \(\mathsf {AM}\). In this work we study the relations between these classes further, partially answering some open questions posed in [5].


Arthur-Merlin Protocols Randomized complexity theory \(\mathsf {NP}\) problems with bounded number of solutions \(\mathsf {SZK}\) 



The author would like to extend his gratitude to Thomas Watson and Ryan Williams for useful conversations. Finally, the author would like to thank Henning Fernau and the anonymous referees for their detailed comments and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Allender, E.W.: The complexity of sparse sets in P. In: Selman, A.L. (ed.) Structure in Complexity Theory. LNCS, vol. 223, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (1986). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora, S., Barak, B.: Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arvind, V., Köbler, J., Schöning, U., Schuler, R.: If NP haspolynomial-size circuits, then MA = AM. Theor. Comput. Sci. 137(2), 279–282 (1995). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babai, L.: Trading group theory for randomness. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 421–429 (1985).
  5. 5.
    Böhler, E., Glaßer, C., Meister, D.: Error-bounded probabilistic computations between MA and AM. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 72(6), 1043–1076 (2006). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouland, A., Chen, L., Holden, D., Thaler, J., Vasudevan, P.: On the power of statistical zero knowledge. In: 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2017, Berkeley, CA, USA, 15–17 October 2017, pp. 708–719 (2017).
  7. 7.
    Fortnow, L.: The complexity of perfect zero-knowledge. Adv. Comput. Res. 5, 327–343 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldreich, O.: A sample of samplers: a computational perspective on sampling. In: Goldreich, O. (ed.) Studies in Complexity and Cryptography. Miscellanea on the Interplay between Randomness and Computation. LNCS, vol. 6650, pp. 302–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldwasser, S., Sipser, M.: Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 59–68 (1986).
  10. 10.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., Rackoff, C.: The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 18(1), 186–208 (1989). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Göös, M., Lovett, S., Meka, R., Watson, T., Zuckerman, D.: Rectangles are nonnegative juntas. SIAM J. Comput. 45(5), 1835–1869 (2016). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kapron, B.M., Malka, L., Srinivasan, V.: A framework for non-interactive instance-dependent commitment schemes (NIC). Theor. Comput. Sci. 593, 1–15 (2015). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karp, R.M., Lipton, R.J.: Some connections between nonuniform and uniform complexity classes. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Los Angeles, California, USA, 28–30 April 1980, pp. 302–309 (1980).
  14. 14.
    Klivans, A., van Melkebeek, D.: Graph nonisomorphism has subexponential sizeproofs unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. SIAM J. Comput. 31(5), 1501–1526 (2002). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miltersen, P.B., Vinodchandran, N.V.: Derandomizing Arthur-Merlin games using hitting sets. Comput. Complex. 14(3), 256–279 (2005). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moran, S.: On the accepting density hierarchy in NP. SIAM J. Comput. 11(2), 344–349 (1982). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Okamoto, T.: On relationships between statistical zero-knowledge proofs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 60(1), 47–108 (2000). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubinstein, R.: Structural Complexity Classes of Sparse Sets: Intractability, Data Compression, and Printability. Ph.D. thesis, Northeastern University, Department of computer Science (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahai, A., Vadhan, S.P.: A complete problem for statistical zero knowledge. J. ACM 50(2), 196–249 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valiant, L.G.: Relative complexity of checking and evaluating. Inf. Process. Lett. 5(1), 20–23 (1976). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vereshchagin, N.K.: On the power of PP. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, pp. 138–143 (1992).
  22. 22.
    Watson, T.: The complexity of estimating min-entropy. Comput. Complex. 25(1), 153–175 (2014). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zuckerman, D.: Simulating BPP using a general weak random source. Algorithmica 16(4/5), 367–391 (1996). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSE DivisionUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations