Paper 2023/754

Batch Proofs are Statistically Hiding

Nir Bitansky, Tel Aviv University
Chethan Kamath, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Omer Paneth, Tel Aviv University
Ron Rothblum, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Prashant Nalini Vasudevan, National University of Singapore

Batch proofs are proof systems that convince a verifier that $x_1,\dots,x_t \in \mathcal{L}$, for some $\mathsf{NP}$ language $\mathcal{L}$, with communication that is much shorter than sending the $t$ witnesses. In the case of *statistical soundness* (where the cheating prover is unbounded but the honest prover is efficient given the witnesses), interactive batch proofs are known for $\mathsf{UP}$, the class of *unique-witness* $\mathsf{NP}$ languages. In the case of computational soundness (where both honest and dishonest provers are efficient), *non-interactive* solutions are now known for all of $\mathsf{NP}$, assuming standard lattice or group assumptions. We exhibit the first negative results regarding the existence of batch proofs and arguments: - Statistically sound batch proofs for $\mathcal{L}$ imply that $\mathcal{L}$ has a statistically witness indistinguishable ($\mathsf{SWI}$) proof, with inverse polynomial $\mathsf{SWI}$ error, and a non-uniform honest prover. The implication is unconditional for obtaining honest-verifier $\mathsf{SWI}$ or for obtaining full-fledged $\mathsf{SWI}$ from public-coin protocols, whereas for private-coin protocols full-fledged $\mathsf{SWI}$ is obtained assuming one-way functions. This poses a barrier for achieving batch proofs beyond $\mathsf{UP}$ (where witness indistinguishability is trivial). In particular, assuming that $\mathsf{NP}$ does not have $\mathsf{SWI}$ proofs, batch proofs for all of $\mathsf{NP}$ do not exist. - Computationally sound batch proofs (a.k.a batch arguments or $\mathsf{BARG}$s) for $\mathsf{NP}$, together with one-way functions, imply statistical zero-knowledge ($\mathsf{SZK}$) arguments for $\mathsf{NP}$ with roughly the same number of rounds, an inverse polynomial zero-knowledge error, and non-uniform honest prover. Thus, constant-round interactive $\mathsf{BARG}$s from one-way functions would yield constant-round $\mathsf{SZK}$ arguments from one-way functions. This would be surprising as $\mathsf{SZK}$ arguments are currently only known assuming constant-round statistically-hiding commitments. We further prove new positive implications of non-interactive batch arguments to non-interactive zero knowledge arguments (with explicit uniform prover and verifier): - Non-interactive $\mathsf{BARG}$s for $\mathsf{NP}$, together with one-way functions, imply non-interactive computational zero-knowledge arguments for $\mathsf{NP}$. Assuming also dual-mode commitments, the zero knowledge can be made statistical. Both our negative and positive results stem from a new framework showing how to transform a batch protocol for a language $\mathcal{L}$ into an $\mathsf{SWI}$ protocol for $\mathcal{L}$.

Note: Added a new result: NIBARG and OWF implies NICZKA.

Available format(s)
Publication info
Batch ProofsWitness IndistinguishabilityZero-Knowledge
Contact author(s)
nirbitan @ tau ac il
ckamath @ protonmail com
omerpa @ tauex tau ac il
rothblum @ cs technion ac il
prashant @ comp nus edu sg
2023-12-04: last of 4 revisions
2023-05-25: received
See all versions
Short URL
No rights reserved


      author = {Nir Bitansky and Chethan Kamath and Omer Paneth and Ron Rothblum and Prashant Nalini Vasudevan},
      title = {Batch Proofs are Statistically Hiding},
      howpublished = {Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2023/754},
      year = {2023},
      note = {\url{}},
      url = {}
Note: In order to protect the privacy of readers, does not use cookies or embedded third party content.