Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAlison Marcon Modified over 3 years ago

1
Parallel Repetition From Fortification Dana Moshkovitz MIT

2
Coloring Two Prover Projection Game: Given graph G=(V,E), 1.Pick uniformly v V and two edges {v,u},{v,u’} E. 2.Each prover gets an edge. Answers: colors for endpoints. 3.Check that the two provers agree on the color of v. {v,u}{v,u’} v, uv, u’ val( G ) = max P(verifier accepts) NP-hardness: It is NP-hard, given a game, to distinguish between val( G )=1 and val( G )<1. PCP Theorem: It is NP-hard, given a game, to distinguish between val( G )=1 and val( G )<0.99. 0.01?

3
Parallel Repetition: Sequential repetition with two provers?? Product game G k e 1,…,e k e 1 ’,…,e k ’ a 1,…,a k a 1 ’,…,a k ’ val( G k ) val( G ) k The Parallel Repetition Problem: val( G k ) ≤ val( G ) k ??

4
Raz: 2 is tight! Special cases analyzed Twenty Five Years of Parallel Repetition Research 1990 1994 Problem posed by Fortnow, Rompel, Sipser Feige,Kilian: Engineer G so val( G k ) poly(1/k). Raz: If val( G )=1- & players’ answers in , val( G k ) (1- ( 32 )) k/2log| |. 2007 Holenstein simplifies! If val( G )=1- & players’ answers in , val( G k ) (1- ( 3 )) k/2log| |. Rao: For projection games, if val( G )=1- & players’ answers in , val( G k ) (1- ( 2 )) Ω(k). Impagliazzo,Kabanets,Wigderson: Feige-Kilian engineering of G yields val( G k ) exp(-Ω( k)). 2014 Partial results Dinur,Steurer: For projection games, val( G k ) (2val( G )) k/2. Current result: Can engineer projection G so val( G k ) val( G ) k + Raz-Rosen: If G projection game on expander & val( G )=1- , val( G k ) (1- ) Ω(k).

5
Basics of Two Prover games [BGKW’88] Hardness of approximation is based on projection games (aka Label Cover). Val( G ) – determines the hardness factor. Size( G )=|R|- determines reduction blow-up. Alphabet size = | | - also effects the blow-up. R = randomness strings. PickTest : R X X. : R {accept,reject}. A game G is defined by: X = set of questions. = set of answers. there is a set Y, labels L for Y, a bipartite graph G=(X,Y,E), and functions {f e : L}. PickTest picks a random y Y and two random neighbors x,x’ X ; (r,a,a’) accepts if f (x,y) (a)=f (x’,y) (a’).

6
Parallel Repetition Might Not Decrease Value Feige’s Non-Interactive Agreement Verifier picks random bits as x, x’. Each player should respond (player,bit). Verifier accepts if both answered same player and his input bit. 01 Wang,0 Wang,0 WangMang val(NIA) = ½. val(NIA 2 ) = ?

7
val(NIA 2 ) = val(NIA) = 1/2 x 1,x 2 Wang,x 1 Mang,x 1 Wang,x 2 ’ Mang,x 2 ’ WangMang x 1 ’,x 2 ’ Verifier accepts in first round with prob 1/2. Conditioned on acceptance in first round, x 1 =x 2 ’, i.e., probability 1 of acceptance in second round.

8
Parallel Repetition is Subt le val( G 2 )=P(x 1,x 1 ’ agree) P(x 2,x 2 ’ agree|x 1,x 1 ’ agree) We focus on a sub-game of G w here x 1,x 1 ’ agree. Its value might be much higher than val( G ).

9
Compare to val(NIA k ) val(NIA) k/2 This Work: Engineer The Game so Parallel Repetition Sequential Repetition -Fortification: Simple, natural, transformation on projection games; maintains the value of the game, somewhat increases size and alphabet. Parallel repetition theorem: for -fortified G, ≤ poly( )(#labels) -k val( G k ) ≤ (val( G )+O(k )) k No Round Left Behind® Combinatorial fortified G G repeat

10
Implication to PCP – Combinatorial PCP with Low Error Starting from [Dinur 05]: combinatorial projection PCP with arbitrarily arbitrarily small constant error. – Implies that for any >0, it is NP-hard to approximate Max-SAT to within 7/8 + [Håstad 97]. – In general: sufficient to determine approximation threshold for many optimization problems.

11
Fortification The verifier picks questions to provers x, x’ as before. Picks extra questions {x 1,…,x w }, x {x 1,…,x w } and {x 1 ’,…,x w ’}, x’ {x 1 ’,…,x w ’}, where w=poly(1/ ). – Sets of questions picked using extractor on X. – E.g., random walk on a constant-degree expander on X. The provers answer all questions; the verifier only checks the answers to x, x’. x 1,…,x w x 1 ’,…,x w ’ a 1,…,a w a 1 ’,…,a w ’ - In Feige-Kilian’s “Confuse and Compare” w=2. - In parallel repetition independence between the k tests seems essential.

12
Dfn: Fraction rectangular sub-games: questions of each prover restricted to fraction subset. Dfn: -fortified: value of all fraction rectangular sub-games of G at most val( G )+ . Lem: The transformed game is -fortified (from extractor property). Extractors: Not every projection game on extractor is fortified. Size: Fortification increases size before repeating, but (size poly(1/ )) k less than size 2k. Alphabet: Provers give w times more answers where w=poly(1/ ). In repetition only k log(1/ ) times more answers. Projection: Fortification preserves projection, but not necessarily uniqueness.

13
Squaring: For -fortified G, ≤ /(2 #colors ) val( G 2 ) ≤ val( G ) 2 +2 Proof: Assume by way of contradiction a strategy for G 2 that does better. 1.Consider questions x 1,x 1 ’,y 1 & label to y 1. Define: S:= { x 2 | (x 1,x 2 ) assigns y 1 } T:= { x 2 ‘| (x 1 ’, x 2 ‘) assigns y 1 } 2.Small Prob Events: Probability of (|S|< |X| & x 2 S) or (|T|< |X| & x 2 ’ T) is 2 #colors ≤ . 3.Conditioning: P(agree on y 2 & |S| |X|& |T| |X| |agree on y 1 ) > val( G )+ . 4.Fortification: If |S| |X|& |T| |X|, value of G restricted to S,T is ≤ val( G )+ . 5.Overall: P(agree on y 2 & agree on y 1 )≤val( G ) 2 +2 .

14
The Influence of Parallel Repetition PCP and Hardness of Approximation: Soundness amplification [Raz]. Cryptography: zero-knowledge two prover protocols [BenOr-Goldwasser-Kilian-Wigderson], arguments [Haitner]. Quantum Computing: Amplifying Bell’s inequality. Communication complexity: Direct sum theorems [Krachmer-Raz-Wigderson], compression [Barak-Braverman-Chen-Rao]. Geometry: Tiling of R n by volume 1 tiles with surface area sphere [Feige-Kindler-O’Donnell, Kindler-O’Donnell-Rao-Wigderson].

Similar presentations

OK

Inapproximability from different hardness assumptions Prahladh Harsha TIFR 2011 School on Approximability.

Inapproximability from different hardness assumptions Prahladh Harsha TIFR 2011 School on Approximability.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To ensure the functioning of the site, we use **cookies**. We share information about your activities on the site with our partners and Google partners: social networks and companies engaged in advertising and web analytics. For more information, see the Privacy Policy and Google Privacy & Terms.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.

Ads by Google

Ppt on case study of leadership Ppt on rime of the ancient mariner part 1 and 2 Ppt on aviation industry in india for presentation Ppt on success and failure in business Ppt on pi in maths what is pi Glass fiber post ppt online Free ppt on child labour in india Ppt on online exam system in java Ppt on features problems and policies of agriculture Ppt on introduction to object-oriented programming in java