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

Polylogarithmic Cuts in Models of V^0

We study initial cuts of models of weak two-sorted Bounded Arithmetics with respect to the strength of their theories and show that these theories are stronger than the original one. More explicitly we will see that polylogarithmic cuts of models of $\mathbf{V}^0$ are models of $\mathbf{VNC}^1$ by formalizing a proof of Nepomnjascij's Theorem in such cuts. This is a strengthening of a result by Paris and Wilkie. We can then exploit our result in Proof Complexity to observe that Frege proof systems can be sub exponentially simulated by bounded depth Frege proof systems. This result has recently been obtained by Filmus, Pitassi and Santhanam in a direct proof. As an interesting observation we also obtain an average case separation of Resolution from AC0-Frege by applying a recent result with Tzameret.Comment: 16 page

On extracting computations from propositional proofs (a survey)

This paper describes a project that aims at showing that propositional proofs of certain tautologies in weak proof system give upper bounds on the computational complexity of functions associated with the tautologies. Such bounds can potentially be used to prove (conditional or unconditional) lower bounds on the lengths of proofs of these tautologies and show separations of some weak proof systems. The prototype are the results showing the feasible interpolation property for resolution. In order to prove similar results for systems stronger than resolution one needs to define suitable generalizations of boolean circuits. We will survey the known results concerning this project and sketch in which direction we want to generalize them

Automating Resolution is NP-Hard

We show that the problem of finding a Resolution refutation that is at most polynomially longer than a shortest one is NP-hard. In the parlance of proof complexity, Resolution is not automatizable unless P = NP. Indeed, we show it is NP-hard to distinguish between formulas that have Resolution refutations of polynomial length and those that do not have subexponential length refutations. This also implies that Resolution is not automatizable in subexponential time or quasi-polynomial time unless NP is included in SUBEXP or QP, respectively

Some subsystems of constant-depth Frege with parity

We consider three relatively strong families of subsystems of AC0[2]-Frege proof systems, i.e., propositional proof systems using constant-depth formulas with an additional parity connective, for which exponential lower bounds on proof size are known. In order of increasing strength, the subsystems are (i) constant-depth proof systems with parity axioms and the (ii) treelike and (iii) daglike versions of systems introduced by Krajíček which we call PKcd(⊕). In a PKcd(⊕)-proof, lines are disjunctions (cedents) in which all disjuncts have depth at most d, parities can only appear as the outermost connectives of disjuncts, and all but c disjuncts contain no parity connective at all. We prove that treelike PKO(1)O(1)(⊕) is quasipolynomially but not polynomially equivalent to constant-depth systems with parity axioms. We also verify that the technique for separating parity axioms from parity connectives due to Impagliazzo and Segerlind can be adapted to give a superpolynomial separation between daglike PKO(1)O(1)(⊕) and AC0[2]-Frege; the technique is inherently unable to prove superquasipolynomial separations. We also study proof systems related to the system Res-Lin introduced by Itsykson and Sokolov. We prove that an extension of treelike Res-Lin is polynomially simulated by a system related to daglike PKO(1)O(1)(⊕), and obtain an exponential lower bound for this system.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Classes of representable disjoint NP-pairs

For a propositional proof system P we introduce the complexity class of all disjoint -pairs for which the disjointness of the pair is efficiently provable in the proof system P. We exhibit structural properties of proof systems which make canonical -pairs associated with these proof systems hard or complete for . Moreover, we demonstrate that non-equivalent proof systems can have equivalent canonical pairs and that depending on the properties of the proof systems different scenarios for and the reductions between the canonical pairs exist

Understanding Cutting Planes for QBFs

We define a cutting planes system CP+8red for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and analyse the proof-theoretic strength of this new calculus. While in the propositional case, Cutting Planes is of intermediate strength between resolution and Frege, our findings here show that the situation in QBF is slightly more complex: while CP+8red is again weaker than QBF Frege and stronger than the CDCL-based QBF resolution systems Q-Res and QU-Res, it turns out to be incomparable to even the weakest expansion-based QBF resolution system 8Exp+Res. Technically, our results establish the effectiveness of two lower boun

Mean-payoff games and propositional proofs

"Vegeu el resum a l'inici del document del fitxer adjunt"

Proof Complexity of Modal Resolution Systems

In this thesis we initiate the study of the proof complexity of modal resolution systems. To our knowledge there is no previous work on the proof complexity of such systems. This is in sharp contrast to the situation for propositional logic where resolution is the most studied proof system, in part due to its close links with satisfiability solving. We focus primarily on the proof complexity of two recently proposed modal resolution systems of Nalon, Hustadt and Dixon, one of which forms the basis of an existing modal theorem prover. We begin by showing that not only are these two proof systems equivalent in terms of their proof complexity, they are also equivalent to a number of natural refinements. We further compare the proof complexity of these systems with an older, more complicated modal resolution system of Enjalbert and Farinas del Cerro, showing that this older system p-simulates the more streamlined calculi. We then investigate lower bound techniques for modal resolution. Here we see that whilst some propositional lower bound techniques (i.e. feasible interpolation) can be lifted to the modal setting with only minor modifications, other propositional techniques (i.e. size-width) fail completely. We further develop a new lower bound technique for modal resolution using Prover-Delayer games. This technique can be used to establish "genuine" modal lower bounds (i.e lower bounds on the number of modal inferences) for the size of tree-like modal resolution proofs. We apply this technique to a new family of modal formulas, called the modal pigeonhole principle to demonstrate that these formulas require exponential size modal resolution proofs. Finally we compare the proof complexity of tree-like modal resolution systems with that of modal Frege systems, using our modal pigeonhole principle to obtain a "genuinely" modal separation between them