Advertisement

The Query Complexity of Program Checking by Constant-Depth Circuits

  • V. Arvind
  • K. V. Subrahmanyam
  • N. V. Vinodchandran
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1741)

Abstract

We study program result checking using AC0 circuits as checkers. We focus on the number of queries made by the checker to the program being checked and we term this as the query complexity of the checker for the given problem. We study the query complexity of deterministic and randomized AC0 checkers for certain P-complete and NC1-complete problems. We show that for each ε > 0, Ω(n 1 ε) is a lower bound to the query complexity of deterministic AC0 checkers for the considered problems, for inputs of length n. On the other hand, we show that suitably encoded complete problems for P and NC1 have randomi- zed AC0 checkers of constant query complexity. The latter results are proved using techniques from the PCP(n 3, 1) protocol for 3-SAT in [4].

Keywords

Constant Number Query Complexity Input Circuit Query Answer Program Check 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. A. Adleman, H. Huang, K. Kompella, Efficient checkers for number-theoretic computations, Information and Computation, 121, 93–102, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Ajtai,11 formulas on finite structures, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 24, (1983) 1–48.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Arvind, Constructivizing membership proofs in complexity classes, International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 8(4) 433–442, 1997, World Scientific.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Arora, C. Lund, R. Motwani, M. Sudan, and M. Szegedy, Proof Verification and the intractability of approximation problems. In Proceedings 33rd Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 14–23, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Blum and S. Kannan, Designing programs that check their work, Journal of the ACM, 42: 269–291, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Blum, M. M. Luby, and R. Rubinfeld, Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems, J. Comput. Syst. Sciences, 47(3): 549–595, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali and C. Rackoff, The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM Journal of Computing, 18(1):186–208, 1989.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Hastad, Computational limitations for small depth circuits. M.I.T. press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Motwani and P. Raghavan, Randomized Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Rubinfeld, Designing checkers for programs that run in parallel. Algorithmica, 15(4):287–301, 1996.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    U. Schöning, Robust algorithms: a different approach to oracles, Theoretical Computer Science, 40: 57–66, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Arvind
    • 1
  • K. V. Subrahmanyam
    • 2
  • N. V. Vinodchandran
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia
  2. 2.SPIC Mathematical InstituteChennaiIndia
  3. 3.BRICSAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations