How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Sequential repetition amplifies completeness and soundness gaps
Statement
If a protocol has completeness and soundness , then for every a polynomially bounded odd number of sequential fresh-coin repetitions, accepting by strict majority, has completeness at least and soundness at most .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: constants , a target , and sequential independent verifier coins.
Expectations are finite weighted sums by Expectation of a real random variable on a finite probability space. Grouping such sums by earlier histories uses The law of total probability for a finite partition, with zero-probability histories omitted.
Proof
Fix with . On a yes-input, use one honest strategy afresh in each repetition, ignoring previous copies. Let indicate rejection in copy . On a no-input, fix any adaptive cheating strategy and instead let indicate acceptance. In both cases, conditional on the full history of earlier copies, : on yes-inputs this is completeness, and on no-inputs the previous history fixes a legitimate strategy for the next fresh-coin copy, so soundness applies. The verifier is reset between copies.
Put . If the conditional success probability of is , then the conditional average of is . Grouping finite sums by complete previous-copy histories and inducting on therefore gives , starting with expectation one at . This argument allows dependence between copies.
On one has . Summing this pointwise bound over the finite coin space gives , where satisfies . For odd , either a majority rejection on a yes-input or a majority acceptance on a no-input is contained in this event.
Write . Induction using gives . Choose an odd integer making this at most . For fixed it is a constant independent of input length, so the repeated verifier retains polynomial time, communication and randomness bounds. The yes-input honest strategy and the uniform bound against every no-input cheating strategy give the two asserted errors.
Depends on
Used by
- The class IP Definition
- Sequential repetition of a constant-gap protocol Example
- Graph nonisomorphism is in IP Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
9 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Goldreich, Foundations of Complexity Theory, Claim 11.2.1 (standard reference, not scraped)