Explicit Space-Time Tradeoffs for Proof Labeling Schemes in Graphs with Small Separators

Authors Orr Fischer, Rotem Oshman, Dana Shamir

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.77 MB
  • 22 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Orr Fischer
  • Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Rotem Oshman
  • Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dana Shamir
  • Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Cite AsGet BibTex

Orr Fischer, Rotem Oshman, and Dana Shamir. Explicit Space-Time Tradeoffs for Proof Labeling Schemes in Graphs with Small Separators. In 25th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2021). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 217, pp. 21:1-21:22, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)


In distributed verification, our goal is to verify that the network configuration satisfies some desired property, using pre-computed information stored at each network node. This is formally modeled as a proof labeling scheme (PLS): a prover assigns to each node a certificate, and then the nodes exchange their certificates with their neighbors and decide whether to accept or reject the configuration. Subsequent work has shown that in some specific cases, allowing more rounds of communication - so that nodes can communicate further across the network - can yield shorter certificates, trading off the space required to store the certificate against the time required for verification. Such tradeoffs were previously known for trees, cycles, and grids, or for proof labeling schemes where all nodes receive the same certificate. In this work we show that in large classes of graphs, every one-round PLS can be transformed into a multi-round PLS with shorter certificates. We give two constructions: given a 1-round PLS with certificates of 𝓁 bits, in graphs families with balanced edge separators of size s(n), we construct a t-round PLS with certificates of size Õ(𝓁 ⋅ s(n) / t), and in graph families with an excluded minor and maximum degree Δ, we construct a t-round PLS with certificates of size Õ(𝓁 ⋅ Δ / √t). Our constructions are explicit, and we use erasure codes to exploit the larger neighborhood viewed by each node in a t-round PLS.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Networks
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
  • proof-labeling schemes
  • space-time tradeoffs
  • families with excluded minor


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Noga Alon, Paul D. Seymour, and Robin Thomas. A separator theorem for graphs with an excluded minor and its applications. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 293-299, 1990. Google Scholar
  2. Keren Censor-Hillel, Ami Paz, and Mor Perry. Approximate proof-labeling schemes. In Structural Information and Communication Complexity - 24th International Colloquium (SIROCCO), volume 10641, pages 71-89, 2017. Google Scholar
  3. Laurent Feuilloley and Pierre Fraigniaud. Survey of distributed decision. Bull. EATCS, 119, 2016. Google Scholar
  4. Laurent Feuilloley and Pierre Fraigniaud. Error-sensitive proof-labeling schemes. In 31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing, volume 91, pages 16:1-16:15, 2017. Google Scholar
  5. Laurent Feuilloley, Pierre Fraigniaud, and Juho Hirvonen. A hierarchy of local decision. Theor. Comput. Sci., 856:51-67, 2021. Google Scholar
  6. Laurent Feuilloley, Pierre Fraigniaud, Juho Hirvonen, Ami Paz, and Mor Perry. Redundancy in distributed proofs. Distributed Computing, 34(2):113-132, 2021. Google Scholar
  7. Laurent Feuilloley, Pierre Fraigniaud, Pedro Montealegre, Ivan Rapaport, Éric Rémila, and Ioan Todinca. Compact distributed certification of planar graphs. Algorithmica, 83(7):2215-2244, 2021. Google Scholar
  8. Pierre Fraigniaud, Boaz Patt-Shamir, and Mor Perry. Randomized proof-labeling schemes. Distributed Computing, 32, 2019. Google Scholar
  9. Greg N. Frederickson. Fast algorithms for shortest paths in planar graphs, with applications. SIAM Journal on Computing, 16(6):1004-1022, 1987. Google Scholar
  10. Mika Göös and Jukka Suomela. Locally checkable proofs in distributed computing. Theory Comput., 12(1):1-33, 2016. Google Scholar
  11. Gillat Kol, Rotem Oshman, and Raghuvansh R. Saxena. Interactive distributed proofs. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 255-264, 2018. Google Scholar
  12. Liah Kor, Amos Korman, and David Peleg. Tight bounds for distributed minimum-weight spanning tree verification. Theory Comput. Syst., 53(2):318-340, 2013. Google Scholar
  13. Janne H. Korhonen and Jukka Suomela. Towards a complexity theory for the congested clique. In Proceedings of the 30th on Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pages 163-172, 2018. Google Scholar
  14. Amos Korman and Shay Kutten. Distributed verification of minimum spanning trees. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 26-34, 2006. Google Scholar
  15. Amos Korman and Shay Kutten. On distributed verification. In Distributed Computing and Networking, 8th International Conference, ICDCN, volume 4308, pages 100-114, 2006. Google Scholar
  16. Amos Korman, Shay Kutten, and David Peleg. Proof labeling schemes. Distributed Comput., 22(4):215-233, 2010. Google Scholar
  17. Moni Naor, Merav Parter, and Eylon Yogev. The power of distributed verifiers in interactive proofs. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1096-115, 2020. Google Scholar
  18. Rafail Ostrovsky, Mor Perry, and Will Rosenbaum. Space-time tradeoffs for distributed verification. In International Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity, pages 53-70. Springer, 2017. Google Scholar
  19. Boaz Patt-Shamir and Mor Perry. Proof-labeling schemes: Broadcast, unicast and in between. In Stabilization, Safety, and Security of Distributed Systems - 19th International Symposium (SSS), volume 10616, pages 1-17, 2017. Google Scholar
  20. Ron M. Roth. Introduction to coding theory. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Google Scholar
  21. Atish Das Sarma, Stephan Holzer, Liah Kor, Amos Korman, Danupon Nanongkai, Gopal Pandurangan, David Peleg, and Roger Wattenhofer. Distributed verification and hardness of distributed approximation. SIAM J. Comput., 41(5):1235-1265, 2012. Google Scholar
  22. Jukka Suomela. Survey of local algorithms. ACM Comput. Surv., 45(2):24:1-24:40, 2013. Google Scholar