Consider a simple Arthur-Merlin
game: Arthur probabilistically chooses a string r sends it to Merlin
who responds with y and then Arthur runs some algorithm A(r,y) to
decide whether to accept. Merlin's goal is to achieve the highest
acceptance probability possible p for Arthur. Suppose we run the game
twice in parallel, Arthur sends r1 and r2 and
Merlin sends y1 and y2 and Arthur accepts if
A(r1,y1) AND A(r2,y2). The
highest possible acceptance probability will be
p2.
Now consider the MIP model with two Merlins M1 and
M2 who cannot communicate with each other. Arthur sends u
and v to M1 and M2 respectively who respond with
y and z. Arthur accepts based on some function A(u,v,y,z). Once again
M1 and M2 try to achieve the highest possible
acceptance probability p. Now we run the game twice in parallel,
Arthur sending u1 and u2 to M1 and
v1 and v2 to M2 receiving
y1 and y2 from M1 and z1
and z2 from M2 and accepting if
A(u1,v1,y1,z1) AND
A(u2,v2,y2,z2).
One might assume that the best the provers can achieve is
p2 (an assumption in fact made in an early paper
co-authored by a certain weblog author) but in some circumstances the
provers can do better. However Ran Raz shows that if p is less than 1, one can
get an exponential decrease in p with a polynomial number of parallel
rounds in
This paper settles one of the more perplexing aspects of multiple
prover proof systems with a highly complicated proof. The result also plays a
critical role in reducing the number of queries in probabilistically
checkable proof systems which led to some
optimal approximation bounds.
As a side note I am off on vacation tomorrow and Adam Klivans will
guest blog in my absence. Enjoy.