\documentstyle{article}
\input{preamble.tex}
%% these are from mac90, but are here now. - Thanks Dan
\newcommand{\floor}[1]{\lfloor#1\rfloor}
\newcommand{\Floor}[1]{\left\lfloor#1\right\rfloor}
\newcommand{\ceiling}[1]{\lceil#1\rceil}
\newcommand{\Ceiling}[1]{\left\lceil#1\right\rceil}


\begin{document}
\lecture{18}{April 17, 1997}{Daniel A. Spielman}{John Dunagan}
%%\subsection*{18.405/6.841 Lecture Notes from Thursday, April 17, 2:30-4:00pm}
\section*{Public Coins = Private Coins}

The general theorem is 
\begin{theorem}
$IP(k(n)) = AM(k(n) + 3)$
\end{theorem}

We will restrict ourselves to proving the special case
\begin{theorem}
$IP(2) = AM(5)$
\end{theorem}

because all the essential ideas are present in this case, and the
analysis is several pages shorter. You are welcome to read the original
paper by Goldwasser-Sipser if you would like to know the details of the
full proof. 
For notational convenience,\\
M = Merlin = $\Sigma$,   and     A = Arthur = $BP$\\
\\
The essential proposition to prove our theorem is this:\\
$Proposition$\\
Let S $\subset$ \{0,1$\}^{m}$ be a language in which one can
efficiently verify membership, (say S $\in$ C where C is a class
analogous to P - later in this lecture, C will appear as AM, something one can
efficiently verify membership in with a little help). Then $\forall$
integer N and polynomial $p$, $\exists$ an MAMC protocol s.t.\\
if $|S| > N, Pr[accept] >  1 - 2^{p(m)}$\\
if $|S| < \frac{N}{2}, Pr[accept] < 2^{p(m)}$\\

Sketch of Proof of Proposition:\\
M: produces a hash function $h$ s.t. $h$:\{0,1$\}^{m}$ is mapped to a set of
size N = \{0,1$\}^{\floor{log N}}$\\
A: randomly chooses elements in  \{0,1$\}^{\floor{log N}}$\\
M: produces pre-images in S for these elements (as many as possible)\\
A: accepts if M provided pre-images for most\\
The rigorous proof is very similar to that which we did in a previous
class for graph non-isomorphism, and it will not be given here
again. There are minor differences though: in working out an AM protocol
of graph non-isomorphism we showed that this method distinguished
between N and N/3, not N and N/2 - however we could prove this for any
constant by considering the set SxS..xS some large constant number of
times instead of the set S alone. 
We also now allow A to verify membership in C, C not
necessarily equal to P. None of these differences present problems in
the proof.

\subsection*{Our IP(2) Model}

Here is our 2-round interactive proof. Let $l$ be our poly, and let $w$
be the word we are reasoning about. We denote the verifier by V and the
prover by P throughout the proof.\\
V: gets a random string $r \in \{0,1\}^{l(|w|)}$\\
V: uses $r$ to produce a message $q$ (``$q$'' for ``query'') to send to P\\
P: answers with a response $a$; P should answer with $a$ that causes
acceptance on most random strings that produce $q$ (which it can if $w$ is
in the set and this a ``good'' protocol, analogous to the graph
non-isomorphism protocol).
\\

A bit of commentary here is in order. V may be pictured as a map from
random strings $r$ to questions $q$. Any interesting IP protocol has V not
injective, because otherwise P knows what $r$ V started with from $q$. (And thus
this is already an AM protocol.)\\
We can divide the $r$ into two types: those which, with $a$, cause
acceptance, and those which don't.\\
Let R($q$) = \{$r \in \{0,1\}^{l(|w|)}$ s.t. $V(w,r) = q$\}\\
Let $a_{q}$ be chosen to maximize $Pr[V(w,r,q,a_{q}) $ accepts] over $r$ s.t.
$V(w,r) = q$\\
Let $A(q) = \{r: V(w,r) = q$ and $V(w,r,q,a_{q})$ accepts $\}$\\
A(q) are the random strings where P is in good shape.\\
A = $\cup A(q)$ over $q$\\
$Pr[V$ accepts$] = \frac{|A|}{2^{l(|w|)}}$
\\
\subsection*{Our MA(5) Simulation}

We now give the MA(5) protocol which solves whatever language the
previous IP(2) protocol did.\\
M will attempt to show that $|A|$ is big. To do this, 
M will demonstrate that for some $c$ and $d$, there are at least $2^{c}$ $q$'s
s.t., $|A(q)| \ge 2^{d}$, which will imply  $|A| \ge 2^{c+d}$ .
If $|A| > 2^{l-1}$, then $\exists c,d$ s.t. this holds, where $2^{c+d}
\ge \frac{2^{l-1}}{2l}$ (this can easily be verified - simply show
the converse is not true by considering the l possibilities for c.)
This will work great if our original IP protocol had error $< 2^{-n}$
because
\begin{itemize}
\item If IP protocol accepted, $|A_{w}| > (1 - 2^{-n})2^{l}$
\item If it rejected, $|A_{w}| < (2^{-n})2^{l}$
\end{itemize}
(this explains why losing a linear factor is not a problem.)\\
\\
This requires 2 lower bound protocols\\
\\
Sub Protocol: we show that $|A(q)| \ge 2^{d}$ can be shown by a lower
bound protocol\\
Given q, M produces $a_{q}$\\
A can decide membership in A(q) in poly time, so we know from our
proposition that $\exists$ an MAM protocol for
this lower bound\\
If $|A(q)| < 2^{d-1}$, A rejects with high probability (this is the second part
of the proposition)\\
\\
Main Protocol: we show $\exists \ge 2^{c-1}$ ``good'' $q$'s (where good
dentoes that for this $q$, $|A(q)| >= 2^{d}$), using an
MAM protocol and verifying using the sub protocol\\
M: sends $c$, $d$, and a hash function $h$ used to show the number of
``good'' (or ``large'') $q$'s 
$> 2^{c-1}$\\
A: choose poly number of random elements in image of $h$\\
M: provides the $q$'s that were pre-images of those elements, and for each $q$,
provides a hash function $h_{q}$ to show $A(q)$ is large\\
A: chooses, for each $h_{q}$, a poly number of random elements (call
a given one $e$) in image of
each $h_{q}$ (checking that $|A(q)| > 2^{d}$)\\
M: provides $r$ s.t. $h_{q}(r)$ = $e$ (the image) (thus showing that
$|A(q)|$ is big)\\
A: accepts if M mostly succeeds\\

Since we have demonstrated an MA(5) protocol which simulates an IP(2)
protocol, this concludes our proof of Theorem 2.

\end{document}



