Lecture1 - PCPs and Inapproximability The PCP Theorem and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: PCPs and Inapproximability The PCP Theorem and GAP-MAX-E3SAT My T. Thai 1 1 Recap 1.1 NP-Completeness Language L is in NP iff there is a polynomial time deterministic verifier V (say a Turning machine) and an arbitrarily powerful prover P , which the following properties: Completeness: For every x L , P can write a proof of length poly( | x | ) that V accepts Soundness: For every x / L , no matter what proof P writes, V rejects. For example, consider the Vertex Cover (VC) problem. Input x = ( G, k ) where G is a graph and k is a positive integer number. (Note that here is the decision problem of VC). The question here is that if there exists a VC of G with at most k vertices. The prover P will write a proof which is a subset S of vertices. The verifier C can verify if is a VC or not. Thus VC is in NP. 1.2 PCP The first question arising from the above definition is: What if we change the requirement of verifier V ? What if V produces one-sided-error? That is, if x is a NO instance, V still output YES. What if V can read a certain amount of , not the whole as above? Randomness complexity : The total bits of randomness (usually is O (log n )) that V can uses, called r . In the case of NP as above, the randomness complexity is 0. Query complexity : The total bits of that V can read, called q . that is, V uses r bits of randomness to choose q random locations in and reads the bits in these q randomly chosen locations. Such a verifier V is called ( r, q )-restricted verifier. More formally: Definition 1 V is said an ( r, q )-restricted verifier V if V is a randomized poly-time algorithm with randomness complexity r and query complexity q . 2 (Note that r and q can be a function of the input size, not necessary a con- stant.) Given 0 s c 1, PCP c,s [ r, q ] if there exists an ( r, q )-restricted verifier satisfying the following conditions: Completeness: If x is a YES-instance, then there exists a proof such that Prob[ V ( x, ) = Y ES ] c Soundness: If x is a NO-instance, then for any , Prob[ V ( x, ) = Y ES ] s When c = 1, and s = 1 / 2, for simplicity, we write PCP[ r, q ] instead of PCP 1 , 1 / 2 [ r, q ] Now, can you show that NP = PCP 1 ,s [0 , poly ( n )] for all s < 1? Can you show that PCP [ O (log n ) , O (log n )] NP ? Note that when r = O (log n ), the the proof-checking can be derandomized, that is, V can be simulated by a polynomial time deterministic verifier that simulates the computation of V on each of the 2 r = n O (1) possible random inputs and then computes the probability that V ( x, ) accepts, then accepts if and only if this probability is one....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/20/2011 for the course CIS 6930 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Florida.

Page1 / 8

Lecture1 - PCPs and Inapproximability The PCP Theorem and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online