A Generalized Method for Proving Polynomial Calculus Degree Lower Bounds

We study the problem of obtaining lower bounds for polynomial calculus (PC) and polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) on proof degree, and hence by [Impagliazzo et al. '99] also on proof size. [Alekhnovich and Razborov '03] established that if the clause-variable incidence graph of a CNF formula F is a good enough expander, then proving that F is unsatisfiable requires high PC/PCR degree. We further develop the techniques in [AR03] to show that if one can "cluster" clauses and variables in a way that "respects the structure" of the formula in a certain sense, then it is sufficient that the incidence graph of this clustered version is an expander. As a corollary of this, we prove that the functional pigeonhole principle (FPHP) formulas require high PC/PCR degree when restricted to constant-degree expander graphs. This answers an open question in [Razborov '02], and also implies that the standard CNF encoding of the FPHP formulas require exponential proof size in polynomial calculus resolution. Thus, while Onto-FPHP formulas are easy for polynomial calculus, as shown in [Riis '93], both FPHP and Onto-PHP formulas are hard even when restricted to bounded-degree expanders.Comment: Full-length version of paper to appear in Proceedings of the 30th Annual Computational Complexity Conference (CCC '15), June 201

A Generalized Method for Proving Polynomial Calculus Degree Lower Bounds

We study the problem of establishing lower bounds for polynomial calculus (PC) and polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) on proof degree, and hence by [Impagliazzo et al. \u2799] also on proof size. [Alekhnovich and Razborov \u2703] established that if the clause-variable incidence graph of a CNF formula F is a good enough expander, then proving that F is unsatisfiable requires high PC/PCR degree. We further develop the techniques in [AR03] to show that if one can "cluster" clauses and variables in a way that "respects the structure" of the formula in a certain sense, then it is sufficient that the incidence graph of this clustered version is an expander. As a corollary of this, we prove that the functional pigeonhole principle (FPHP) formulas require high PC/PCR degree when restricted to constant-degree expander graphs. This answers an open question in [Razborov \u2702], and also implies that the standard CNF encoding of the FPHP formulas require exponential proof size in polynomial calculus resolution

Circuit complexity, proof complexity, and polynomial identity testing

We introduce a new algebraic proof system, which has tight connections to (algebraic) circuit complexity. In particular, we show that any super-polynomial lower bound on any Boolean tautology in our proof system implies that the permanent does not have polynomial-size algebraic circuits (VNP is not equal to VP). As a corollary to the proof, we also show that super-polynomial lower bounds on the number of lines in Polynomial Calculus proofs (as opposed to the usual measure of number of monomials) imply the Permanent versus Determinant Conjecture. Note that, prior to our work, there was no proof system for which lower bounds on an arbitrary tautology implied any computational lower bound. Our proof system helps clarify the relationships between previous algebraic proof systems, and begins to shed light on why proof complexity lower bounds for various proof systems have been so much harder than lower bounds on the corresponding circuit classes. In doing so, we highlight the importance of polynomial identity testing (PIT) for understanding proof complexity. More specifically, we introduce certain propositional axioms satisfied by any Boolean circuit computing PIT. We use these PIT axioms to shed light on AC^0[p]-Frege lower bounds, which have been open for nearly 30 years, with no satisfactory explanation as to their apparent difficulty. We show that either: a) Proving super-polynomial lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege implies VNP does not have polynomial-size circuits of depth d - a notoriously open question for d at least 4 - thus explaining the difficulty of lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege, or b) AC^0[p]-Frege cannot efficiently prove the depth d PIT axioms, and hence we have a lower bound on AC^0[p]-Frege. Using the algebraic structure of our proof system, we propose a novel way to extend techniques from algebraic circuit complexity to prove lower bounds in proof complexity

Trade-Offs Between Size and Degree in Polynomial Calculus

Building on [Clegg et al. \u2796], [Impagliazzo et al. \u2799] established that if an unsatisfiable k-CNF formula over n variables has a refutation of size S in the polynomial calculus resolution proof system, then this formula also has a refutation of degree k + O(?(n log S)). The proof of this works by converting a small-size refutation into a small-degree one, but at the expense of increasing the proof size exponentially. This raises the question of whether it is possible to achieve both small size and small degree in the same refutation, or whether the exponential blow-up is inherent. Using and extending ideas from [Thapen \u2716], who studied the analogous question for the resolution proof system, we prove that a strong size-degree trade-off is necessary

Stein's method, Malliavin calculus, Dirichlet forms and the fourth moment theorem

The fourth moment theorem provides error bounds of the order $\sqrt{{\mathbb E}(F^4) - 3}$ in the central limit theorem for elements $F$ of Wiener chaos of any order such that ${\mathbb E}(F^2) = 1$. It was proved by Nourdin and Peccati (2009) using Stein's method and the Malliavin calculus. It was also proved by Azmoodeh, Campese and Poly (2014) using Stein's method and Dirichlet forms. This paper is an exposition on the connections between Stein's method and the Malliavin calculus and between Stein's method and Dirichlet forms, and on how these connections are exploited in proving the fourth moment theorem

12th International Workshop on Termination (WST 2012) : WST 2012, February 19–23, 2012, Obergurgl, Austria / ed. by Georg Moser

This volume contains the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Termination (WST 2012), to be held February 19–23, 2012 in Obergurgl, Austria. The goal of the Workshop on Termination is to be a venue for presentation and discussion of all topics in and around termination. In this way, the workshop tries to bridge the gaps between different communities interested and active in research in and around termination. The 12th International Workshop on Termination in Obergurgl continues the successful workshops held in St. Andrews (1993), La Bresse (1995), Ede (1997), Dagstuhl (1999), Utrecht (2001), Valencia (2003), Aachen (2004), Seattle (2006), Paris (2007), Leipzig (2009), and Edinburgh (2010). The 12th International Workshop on Termination did welcome contributions on all aspects of termination and complexity analysis. Contributions from the imperative, constraint, functional, and logic programming communities, and papers investigating applications of complexity or termination (for example in program transformation or theorem proving) were particularly welcome. We did receive 18 submissions which all were accepted. Each paper was assigned two reviewers. In addition to these 18 contributed talks, WST 2012, hosts three invited talks by Alexander Krauss, Martin Hofmann, and Fausto Spoto

Global optimization of polynomials using gradient tentacles and sums of squares

In this work, the combine the theory of generalized critical values with the theory of iterated rings of bounded elements (real holomorphy rings). We consider the problem of computing the global infimum of a real polynomial in several variables. Every global minimizer lies on the gradient variety. If the polynomial attains a minimum, it is therefore equivalent to look for the greatest lower bound on its gradient variety. Nie, Demmel and Sturmfels proved recently a theorem about the existence of sums of squares certificates for such lower bounds. Based on these certificates, they find arbitrarily tight relaxations of the original problem that can be formulated as semidefinite programs and thus be solved efficiently. We deal here with the more general case when the polynomial is bounded from belo w but does not necessarily attain a minimum. In this case, the method of Nie, Demmel and Sturmfels might yield completely wrong results. In order to overcome this problem, we replace the gradient variety by larger semialgebraic sets which we call gradient tentacles. It now gets substantially harder to prove the existence of the necessary sums of squares certificates.Comment: 22 page

Narrow proofs may be maximally long

We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n(Omega(w)). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n(O(w)) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. The lower bound does not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, since we show that there the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft