Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
87 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Premium
36 tokens/sec
GPT-5 Medium
31 tokens/sec
GPT-5 High Premium
39 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
95 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Premium
91 tokens/sec
GPT OSS 120B via Groq Premium
460 tokens/sec
Kimi K2 via Groq Premium
219 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Note on Almost Perfect Probabilistically Checkable Proofs of Proximity (1511.05178v1)

Published 16 Nov 2015 in cs.CC

Abstract: Probabilistically checkable proofs of proximity (PCPP) are proof systems where the verifier is given a 3SAT formula, but has only oracle access to an assignment and a proof. The verifier accepts a satisfying assignment with a valid proof, and rejects (with high enough probability) an assignment that is far from all satisfying assignments (for any given proof). In this work, we focus on the type of computation the verifier is allowed to make. Assuming P $\neq$ NP, there can be no PCPP when the verifier is only allowed to answer according to constraints from a set that forms a CSP that is solvable in P. Therefore, the notion of PCPP is relaxed to almost perfect probabilistically checkable proofs of proximity (APPCPP), where the verifier is allowed to reject a satisfying assignment with a valid proof, with arbitrary small probability. We show, unconditionally, a dichotomy of sets of allowable computations: sets that have APPCPPs (which actually follows because they have PCPPs) and sets that do not. This dichotomy turns out to be the same as that of the Dichotomy Theorem, which can be thought of as dividing sets of allowable verifier computations into sets that give rise to NP-hard CSPs, and sets that give rise to CSPs that are solvable in P.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)