The class of decision problems such that a "yes" answer can be verified by a probabilistically checkable proof, as follows.
The verifier is a polynomial-time Turing machine with access to O(r(n)) uniformly random bits. It has random access to a proof (which might be exponentially long), but can query only O(q(n)) bits of the proof.
Then we require the following:
Defined in [AS98].
By definition NP = PCP(0,poly(n)).
MIP = PCP(poly(n),poly(n)).
PCP(r(n),q(n)) is contained in NTIME(2O(r(n))q(n) + poly(n)).
NP = PCP(log n, log n) [AS98].
In fact, NP = PCP(log n, 1) [ALM+98]!
On the other hand, if NP is contained in PCP(o(log n), o(log n)), then P = NP [FGL+91].
Also, even though there exists an oracle relative to which NP = EXP [Hel84], if we could show there exists an oracle relative to which PCP(log n, 1) = EXP, then we'd have proved P not equal to NP [For94].
Another weird oracle fact: since NP does not equal NEXP [SFM78], PCP(log n, log n) does not equal PCP(poly(n), poly(n)). However, there exist oracles relative to which the latter inequality is false [HCC+92].
An interactive oracle proof (IOP) is a proof system that combines PCP and IP. An IOP allows both the prover and verifier to send messages like in the interactive proof model, but the verifier is given oracle access to the prover's messages. This is similar to a PCP, but instead of sending one fixed proof, the prover can send multiple proofs during the interaction, with the proofs' contents depending on the verifier messages. The verifier can then randomly query symbols from the received proofs.
The class of problems solved by IOP is NEXP, which is also the class of problems solved by PCP. Therefore IOPs are not more powerful than PCPs, but they can achieve better parameters such as total proof length, alphabet size, and query complexity. The parameters of an IOP are determined by simply summing up the parameters at each round. IOPs can be converted to IPs using Merkle trees via the BCS compiler, the same way PCPs are converted.
The class of dashed hopes and idle dreams.
More formally: an "NP machine" is a nondeterministic polynomial-time Turing machine.
Then NP is the class of decision problems solvable by an NP machine such that
Equivalently, NP is the class of decision problems such that, if the answer is "yes," then there is a proof of this fact, of length polynomial in the size of the input, that can be verified in P (i.e. by a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm). On the other hand, if the answer is "no," then the algorithm must declare invalid any purported proof that the answer is "yes."
For example, the SAT problem is to decide whether a given Boolean formula has any satisfying truth assignments. SAT is in NP, since a "yes" answer can be proved by just exhibiting a satisfying assignment.
A decision problem is NP-complete if (1) it is in NP, and (2) any problem in NP can be reduced to it (under some notion of reduction). The class of NP-complete problems is sometimes called NPC.
That NP-complete problems exist is immediate from the definition. The seminal result of Cook [Coo71], Karp [Kar72], and Levin [Lev73] is that many natural problems (that have nothing to do with Turing machines) are NP-complete.
The first such problem to be shown NP-complete was SAT [Coo71]. Other classic NP-complete problems include:
For many, many more NP-complete problems, see [GJ79].
There exists an oracle relative to which P and NP are unequal [BGS75]. Indeed, P and NP are unequal relative to a random oracle with probability 1 [BG81] (see [AFM01] for a novel take on this result). Though random oracle results are not always indicative about the unrelativized case [CCG+94].
There even exists an oracle relative to which the P versus NP problem is outside the usual axioms of set theory [HH76].
If we restrict to monotone classes, mP is strictly contained in mNP [Raz85].
Perhaps the most important insight anyone has had into P versus NP is to be found in [RR97]. There the authors show that no 'natural proof' can separate P from NP (or more precisely, place NP outside of P/poly), unless secure pseudorandom generators do not exist. A proof is 'natural' if it satisfies two conditions called constructivity and largeness; essentially all lower bound techniques known to date satisfy these conditions. To obtain unnatural proof techniques, some people suspect we need to relate P versus NP to heavy-duty 'traditional' mathematics, for instance algebraic geometry. See [MS02] (and the survey article [Reg02]) for a development of this point of view.
For more on P versus NP (circa 1992) see [Sip92]. For an opinion poll, see [Gas02]. P vs NP is a "Millenium Prize" problem [CMI00].
If P equals NP, then NP equals its complement coNP. Whether NP equals coNP is also open. NP and coNP can be extended to the polynomial hierarchy PH.
The set of decision problems in NP, but not in P or NPC, is sometimes called NPI. If P does not equal NP then NPI is nonempty [Lad75].
Probabilistic generalizations of NP include MA and AM. If NP is in coAM (or BPP) then PH collapses to Σ2P [BHZ87].
PH also collapses to Σ2P if NP is in P/poly [KL82].
There exist oracles relative to which NP is not in BQP [BBB+97].
An alternate characterization is NP = PCP(log n, O(1)) [ALM+98].
Also, [Fag74] showed that NP is precisely the class of decision problems reducible to a graph-theoretic property expressible in second-order existential logic. This leads to the subclass SNP.
It is known that if any NP-complete language is sparse (contains no more than a polynomial number of strings of length ), then P = NP. [BH08] improved this result, showing that if any language in NP has an NP-hard set of subexponential density, then coNP is contained in NP/poly and thus, by [Yap82], PH collapses to the third level.
NP is equal to SO-E, the second-order queries where the second-order quantifiers are only existantials.
