The Deduction Theorem for Strong Propositional Proof Systems

This paper focuses on the deduction theorem for propositional logic. We define and investigate different deduction properties and show that the presence of these deduction properties for strong proof systems is powerful enough to characterize the existence of optimal and even polynomially bounded proof systems. We also exhibit a similar, but apparently weaker condition that implies the existence of complete disjoint NPUnknown control sequence '\mathsf' -pairs. In particular, this yields a sufficient condition for the completeness of the canonical pair of Frege systems and provides a general framework for the search for complete NPUnknown control sequence '\mathsf' -pairs

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

Disjoint NP-pairs from propositional proof systems

For a proof system P we introduce the complexity class DNPP(P) of all disjoint NP-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 the previously defined canonical NP-pairs of these proof systems hard or complete for DNPP(P). 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 DNPP(P) and the reductions between the canonical pairs exist

Least Generalizations and Greatest Specializations of Sets of Clauses

The main operations in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) are generalization and specialization, which only make sense in a generality order. In ILP, the three most important generality orders are subsumption, implication and implication relative to background knowledge. The two languages used most often are languages of clauses and languages of only Horn clauses. This gives a total of six different ordered languages. In this paper, we give a systematic treatment of the existence or non-existence of least generalizations and greatest specializations of finite sets of clauses in each of these six ordered sets. We survey results already obtained by others and also contribute some answers of our own. Our main new results are, firstly, the existence of a computable least generalization under implication of every finite set of clauses containing at least one non-tautologous function-free clause (among other, not necessarily function-free clauses). Secondly, we show that such a least generalization need not exist under relative implication, not even if both the set that is to be generalized and the background knowledge are function-free. Thirdly, we give a complete discussion of existence and non-existence of greatest specializations in each of the six ordered languages.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

Making proofs without Modus Ponens: An introduction to the combinatorics and complexity of cut elimination

This paper is intended to provide an introduction to cut elimination which is accessible to a broad mathematical audience. Gentzen's cut elimination theorem is not as well known as it deserves to be, and it is tied to a lot of interesting mathematical structure. In particular we try to indicate some dynamical and combinatorial aspects of cut elimination, as well as its connections to complexity theory. We discuss two concrete examples where one can see the structure of short proofs with cuts, one concerning feasible numbers and the other concerning "bounded mean oscillation" from real analysis

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

Logical closure properties of propositional proof systems - (Extended abstract)

In this paper we define and investigate basic logical closure properties of propositional proof systems such as closure of arbitrary proof systems under modus ponens or substitutions. As our main result we obtain a purely logical characterization of the degrees of schematic extensions of EF in terms of a simple combination of these properties. This result underlines the empirical evidence that EF and its extensions admit a robust definition which rests on only a few central concepts from propositional logic