Single-prover interactive proofs can recognize PSPACE; if certain complexity assumptions are made, they can do so in zero-knowledge. Generalizing to multiple non-communicating provers extends this class to NEXP, and at the same time removes the complexity assumption needed for zero-knowledge. \n \nHowever, it was recently discovered that the non-communication condition might be insufficient to guarantee soundness. The provers can form joint randomness through non-local computation without communicating. This could break protocols that rely on the statistical independence of the provers. \n \nIn this work, we analyze multi-prover interactive proofs under the constraint of statistical isolation which prohibits non-local computation. We show that there exists perfect zero-knowledge proofs for NEXP under statistical isolation.
Single-prover interactive proofs can recognize PSPACE; if certain complexity assumptions are made, they can do so in zero-knowledge. Generalizing to multiple non-communicating provers extends this class to NEXP, and at the same time removes the complexity assumption needed for zero-knowledge. \n \nHowever, it was recently discovered that the non-communication condition might be insufficient to guarantee soundness. The provers can form joint randomness through non-local computation without communicating. This could break protocols that rely on the statistical independence of the provers. \n \nIn this work, we analyze multi-prover interactive proofs under the constraint of statistical isolation which prohibits non-local computation. We show that there exists perfect zero-knowledge proofs for NEXP under statistical isolation.
The existing multi-prover interactive proof framework suffers from incompleteness in terms of soundness and zero-knowledge that is not completely addressed in the literature. The problem is that the existing definitions of what is local, entangled and no-signalling are not rich enough to capture the full generality of multi-prover interaction. In general, existing proofs do not take into account possible changes in locality either during a protocol's execution or when protocols are composed together. This is especially problematic for zero-knowledge, as composing commitments is the only known way of achieving zero-knowledge outside of some NP-intermediate languages.
In this work, we introduce the locality hierarchy for multiparty (multi-round) interaction, and for the first time a complete definition of multi-round multiparty no-signalling distributions and strategies. Within this framework, we define the locality of a protocol which involves the provers, verifiers, simulators and distinguishers. We show that an existing protocol for NEXP [BFL90] and a zero-knowledge variant we introduce are sound in a local sense, but are zero-knowledge in a sense that is even stronger than usually understood. All prior claims of zero-knowledge proofs in the multi-prover model were actually incorrect. Finally, we present similar constructions for entangled and no-signalling prover sets for NEXP and EXP based on [IV12] and [KRR14] using new multi-prover commitment schemes.
We prove a strong limitation on the ability of entangled provers to collude in a multiplayer game. Our main result is the first nontrivial lower bound on the class MIP* of languages having multi-prover interactive proofs with entangled provers, namely MIP* contains NEXP, the class of languages decidable in non-deterministic exponential time. While Babai, Fort now, and Lund (Computational Complexity 1991) proved the celebrated equality MIP = NEXP in the absence of entanglement, ever since the introduction of the class MIP* it was open whether shared entanglement between the provers could weaken or strengthen the computational power of multi-prover interactive proofs. Our result shows that it does not weaken their computational power: MIP* contains MIP. At the heart of our result is a proof that Babai, Fort now, and Lund's multilinearity test is sound even in the presence of entanglement between the provers, and our analysis of this test could be of independent interest. As a byproduct we show that the correlations produced by any entangled strategy which succeeds in the multilinearity test with high probability can always be closely approximated using shared randomness alone.
In multi-prover interactive proofs (MIPs), the verifier can provide non-local resources for the provers intrinsically. In most cases, this is undesirable. Existing proofs of soundness do not account for the verifier's non-local potential. We show that this may be a problem for many MIPs. We provide a solution by constructing a generalization of the MIP model, of which standard MIPs are a special case. This new model accounts for both the prover and the verifier's non-local correlations. A new property of multi-prover zero-knowledge naturally emerges as a result.
It is known that there exist multi-prover interactive protocols (MIP protocols) for the complexity class NEXP, succinct MIP protocols for NP and multi-prover interactive protocols with shared entanglement (MIP∗ protocols) for RE. This extraordinary power of multi-prover interactive proof systems comes from the assumption that provers do not communicate with each other during the protocols. If they are allowed to communicate freely, the setting is the same as in the single-prover case, and the computational power of the system becomes significantly weaker.
In this paper, we investigate for the first time the setting where communication (i.e., leakage of information) between provers is allowed but bounded. We introduce two techniques to approach this question and show that multi-prover interactive proof systems are robust against some amount of leakage. Our first technique is based on parallel repetition theorems. We apply it to show that for any polynomial p, we can construct two-prover one-round MIP and MIP∗ protocols for NEXP and RE, respectively, that are robust against p(n) bits of leakage. We further derive our second technique to convert any low-soundness PCP construction to a two-prover one-round MIP protocol for NP robust against leakage. We also discuss the relation between robustness against leakage in multi-prover interactive proof systems and the Sliding Scale Conjecture in the PCP literature.
In this paper we introduce a quantum analogue of multi-prover interactive proof systems by naturally extending the model of single-prover quantum interactive proof systems defined by Watrous. It is proved that the class of languages having quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems is equal to NEXP. It implies that the quantum analogue has no gain to the classical counterpart in the setting of multi-prover interactive proof systems. Another interesting result shown in this paper is that, in case the prover does not have his private qubits, the class of languages having single-prover quantum interactive proof systems is also equal to NEXP. To our knowledge, our results give the first exact characterizations of a classical time complexity class in quantum computational terms.
We introduce a new variant of quantum multiprover interactive proofs (QMIP) where the provers and the verifier are quantum. The verifier can exchange quantum messages with the provers. The provers cannot communicate quantumly between themselves and do not share entanglement, but are unlimited in the classical communication between them, even after receiving messages from the verifier. We show that any language in nondeterministic exponential time (NEXP) can be recognized in this model efficiently, with just two provers and two rounds of communication, and with a constant completeness/soundness gap. This is in contrast to the result of [R. Jain et al., Comm. ACM, 53 (2010), pp. 102--109], which shows that QIP = PSPACE, or equivalently that the set of languages that can be recognized by a quantum verifier communicating with a single quantum prover is equal to PSPACE. To analyze the cheating power of the provers, we give them more power and allow them to perform any separable operation. We then show a unique two-phase protocol in which the provers first commit to a superposition of correct answers to all possible questions, and then in the second phase the verifier opens up the committed answer and checks for correctness and consistency.