  Interactive-proof games model the scenario where an honest party interacts
with powerful but strategic provers, to elicit from them the correct answer to
a computational question. Interactive proofs are increasingly used as a
framework to design protocols for computation outsourcing.
  Existing interactive-proof games largely fall into two categories: either as
games of cooperation such as multi-prover interactive proofs and cooperative
rational proofs, where the provers work together as a team; or as games of
conflict such as refereed games, where the provers directly compete with each
other in a zero-sum game. Neither of these extremes truly capture the strategic
nature of service providers in outsourcing applications. How to design and
analyze non-cooperative interactive proofs is an important open problem.
  In this paper, we introduce a mechanism-design approach to define a
multi-prover interactive-proof model in which the provers are rational and
non-cooperative---they act to maximize their expected utility given others'
strategies. We define a strong notion of backwards induction as our solution
concept to analyze the resulting extensive-form game with imperfect
information.
  Our protocols provide utility gap guarantees, which are analogous to
soundness gap in classic interactive proofs. At a high level, a utility gap of
u means that the protocol is robust against provers that may not care about a
utility loss of 1/u.
  We fully characterize the complexity of our proof system under different
utility gap guarantees. For example, we show that with a polynomial utility
gap, the power of non-cooperative rational interactive proofs is exactly
P^NEXP.
