Description

Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101011110001010. . 001100101011101. . 1111010110001. . . .. WHAT IS BOB GAINING FROM THIS INTERACTION??. WHY WOULD YOU TALK TO AN ALIEN?. TO SEE IF THEY ARE INTELLIGENT?. TO OBTAIN WISDOM?. TO ASK THEM TO STOP BOMBARDING US WITH DANGEROUS RADIATION??.

Transcripts

General Communication Brendan Juba (MIT) With: Madhu Sudan (MIT)

Setting 101011110001010 001100101011101 . . . 1111010110001 WHAT IS BOB GAINING FROM THIS INTERACTION??

TO SEE IF THEY ARE INTELLIGENT ? TO OBTAIN WISDOM? WHY WOULD YOU TALK TO AN ALIEN ? TO ASK THEM TO STOP BOMBARDING US WITH DANGEROUS RADIATION ??

Motivation WHAT CAN BOB LEARN FROM ALICE ?

Setting Fix a set S and a string x Bob wishes to learn " x S? " WANT : convention that ends with a decision that is CORRECT (whp) Also: productive long of x

Outline Definition: Universal convention Analysis of conveying astuteness Generalizing objectives

We need a hypothesis of the structure ??? "Here is a Bob s.t. for each outsider dialect and each occasion x, Bob productively learns if x S "

Language??? X Grammar? Terms? Strings with elucidations STRONG ASSUMPTIONS!

I COULD HELP, IF I WANTED. Perception Some Alices are unhelpful . x∈S? y∈S? z∈S?

Solution Require Alice accommodating in some dialect . x S? x S

WHAT\'S THE PASSWORD ? Perception Some Alices are still unhelpful . Hi?? @&^#*&^%$; x? x S I\'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ANYMORE.

Revision Require that some B\' can proficiently choose " x S? " with Alice\'s help, free of earlier message history Henceforth, such Alices will be called S - accommodating

Definition: S - Universal Bob is S - Universal if S - supportive A polynomial p x (of length n ) whp Bob chooses " xS? " when chatting with A , inside p(n) ventures in desire

Outline Definition: Universal convention Analysis of conveying insight Generalizing objectives

MAIN IDEA #1 We can effectively specify and run every proficient convention If An is S - Helpful , she helps a productive convention B\' that shows up in the list

MAIN IDEA #2 If we can get a proof of either xS or xS , we can promise rightness If S IP , such evidences exist If S is PSPACE - complete , we can lessen demonstrating (non)membership to different examples of S

Theorem For any PSPACE - complete S , there is a S - Universal convention

For how extensive a class of sets would we be able to display an all inclusive convention ?

Limitation 1: fundamental perception Suppose that for some x , some noxious outsider Alice can misdirect Bob (whp) We can change over Alice into a " accommodating " A\' who still deludes Bob : cushion the valuable questions Recall: a S - Universal Bob ought not be deceived by a S - Helpful Alice !

Limitation 1: completing up Thus: a S - Universal Bob fulfills a solid soundness condition In PSPACE we can discover the messages that augment the likelihood that Bob stops rapidly Since Bob is sound , his decision on these messages choose S

First confinement If a S - Universal convention exists, S PSPACE

Second restriction (Assuming BPP ≠ PSPACE ) For any PSPACE - complete S , if Alice helps a convention of length l the running time of a S - Universal Bob must incorporate a steady calculate that is exponential l

Outline Definition: Universal convention Analysis of imparting insight Generalizing objectives

What about productivity ? Our development acquired shrewdness from an Alice who could choose PSPACE We get closely resembling comes about with effective Alices : limit assets utilized by our translator Depending on assets used to confirm , may just be important in an online sense: "Bounce unites to a non-paltry mediator "

General setting SOME collaborations are fruitful , others are NOT. We look for a convention that lets us know how to take part in fruitful communications (whp)

Define: " objective " Efficiently unquestionable adequate conditions on Bob\'s perspective of connection E.g., successful, effective conventions ! Simple speculation of our definitions and general convention for the computational objective to any such objective

(specialized) CONCLUSION UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION is workable for VERIFIABLE GOALS .

Practical inspiration Designing conventions for individual gadgets . (cf. sets, sets, and so on.) Simpler , more hearty systems

Practical specialized difficulties Design reasonable " objectives " (think: "program checking") Find a limited class of conventions that grants " length-effective " setup

Thank you! Questions?