2,411 research outputs found
Space complexity in polynomial calculus
During the last decade, an active line of research in proof complexity has been to study space
complexity and time-space trade-offs for proofs. Besides being a natural complexity measure of
intrinsic interest, space is also an important issue in SAT solving, and so research has mostly focused
on weak systems that are used by SAT solvers.
There has been a relatively long sequence of papers on space in resolution, which is now reasonably
well understood from this point of view. For other natural candidates to study, however, such as
polynomial calculus or cutting planes, very little has been known. We are not aware of any nontrivial
space lower bounds for cutting planes, and for polynomial calculus the only lower bound has been
for CNF formulas of unbounded width in [Alekhnovich et al. ’02], where the space lower bound is
smaller than the initial width of the clauses in the formulas. Thus, in particular, it has been consistent
with current knowledge that polynomial calculus could be able to refute any k-CNF formula in
constant space.
In this paper, we prove several new results on space in polynomial calculus (PC), and in the
extended proof system polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) studied in [Alekhnovich et al. ’02]:
1. We prove an Ω(n) space lower bound in PC for the canonical 3-CNF version of the pigeonhole
principle formulas PHPm
n with m pigeons and n holes, and show that this is tight.
2. For PCR, we prove an Ω(n) space lower bound for a bitwise encoding of the functional pigeonhole
principle. These formulas have width O(log n), and hence this is an exponential
improvement over [Alekhnovich et al. ’02] measured in the width of the formulas.
3. We then present another encoding of the pigeonhole principle that has constant width, and
prove an Ω(n) space lower bound in PCR for these formulas as well.
4. Finally, we prove that any k-CNF formula can be refuted in PC in simultaneous exponential
size and linear space (which holds for resolution and thus for PCR, but was not obviously
the case for PC). We also characterize a natural class of CNF formulas for which the space
complexity in resolution and PCR does not change when the formula is transformed into 3-CNF
in the canonical way, something that we believe can be useful when proving PCR space lower
bounds for other well-studied formula families in proof complexity
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
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 (PCR) and Sherali-Adams,
implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank
are tight as well. Our results do not extend all the way to Lasserre, however,
where the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in
both n and w
Hardness measures and resolution lower bounds
Various "hardness" measures have been studied for resolution, providing
theoretical insight into the proof complexity of resolution and its fragments,
as well as explanations for the hardness of instances in SAT solving. In this
report we aim at a unified view of a number of hardness measures, including
different measures of width, space and size of resolution proofs. We also
extend these measures to all clause-sets (possibly satisfiable).Comment: 43 pages, preliminary version (yet the application part is only
sketched, with proofs missing
Understanding Space in Proof Complexity: Separations and Trade-offs via Substitutions
For current state-of-the-art DPLL SAT-solvers the two main bottlenecks are
the amounts of time and memory used. In proof complexity, these resources
correspond to the length and space of resolution proofs. There has been a long
line of research investigating these proof complexity measures, but while
strong results have been established for length, our understanding of space and
how it relates to length has remained quite poor. In particular, the question
whether resolution proofs can be optimized for length and space simultaneously,
or whether there are trade-offs between these two measures, has remained
essentially open.
In this paper, we remedy this situation by proving a host of length-space
trade-off results for resolution. Our collection of trade-offs cover almost the
whole range of values for the space complexity of formulas, and most of the
trade-offs are superpolynomial or even exponential and essentially tight. Using
similar techniques, we show that these trade-offs in fact extend to the
exponentially stronger k-DNF resolution proof systems, which operate with
formulas in disjunctive normal form with terms of bounded arity k. We also
answer the open question whether the k-DNF resolution systems form a strict
hierarchy with respect to space in the affirmative.
Our key technical contribution is the following, somewhat surprising,
theorem: Any CNF formula F can be transformed by simple variable substitution
into a new formula F' such that if F has the right properties, F' can be proven
in essentially the same length as F, whereas on the other hand the minimal
number of lines one needs to keep in memory simultaneously in any proof of F'
is lower-bounded by the minimal number of variables needed simultaneously in
any proof of F. Applying this theorem to so-called pebbling formulas defined in
terms of pebble games on directed acyclic graphs, we obtain our results.Comment: This paper is a merged and updated version of the two ECCC technical
reports TR09-034 and TR09-047, and it hence subsumes these two report
From average case complexity to improper learning complexity
The basic problem in the PAC model of computational learning theory is to
determine which hypothesis classes are efficiently learnable. There is
presently a dearth of results showing hardness of learning problems. Moreover,
the existing lower bounds fall short of the best known algorithms.
The biggest challenge in proving complexity results is to establish hardness
of {\em improper learning} (a.k.a. representation independent learning).The
difficulty in proving lower bounds for improper learning is that the standard
reductions from -hard problems do not seem to apply in this
context. There is essentially only one known approach to proving lower bounds
on improper learning. It was initiated in (Kearns and Valiant 89) and relies on
cryptographic assumptions.
We introduce a new technique for proving hardness of improper learning, based
on reductions from problems that are hard on average. We put forward a (fairly
strong) generalization of Feige's assumption (Feige 02) about the complexity of
refuting random constraint satisfaction problems. Combining this assumption
with our new technique yields far reaching implications. In particular,
1. Learning 's is hard.
2. Agnostically learning halfspaces with a constant approximation ratio is
hard.
3. Learning an intersection of halfspaces is hard.Comment: 34 page
Towards Verifying Nonlinear Integer Arithmetic
We eliminate a key roadblock to efficient verification of nonlinear integer
arithmetic using CDCL SAT solvers, by showing how to construct short resolution
proofs for many properties of the most widely used multiplier circuits. Such
short proofs were conjectured not to exist. More precisely, we give n^{O(1)}
size regular resolution proofs for arbitrary degree 2 identities on array,
diagonal, and Booth multipliers and quasipolynomial- n^{O(\log n)} size proofs
for these identities on Wallace tree multipliers.Comment: Expanded and simplified with improved result
Improved Pseudorandom Generators from Pseudorandom Multi-Switching Lemmas
We give the best known pseudorandom generators for two touchstone classes in
unconditional derandomization: an -PRG for the class of size-
depth- circuits with seed length , and an -PRG for the class of -sparse
polynomials with seed length . These results bring the state of the art for
unconditional derandomization of these classes into sharp alignment with the
state of the art for computational hardness for all parameter settings:
improving on the seed lengths of either PRG would require breakthrough progress
on longstanding and notorious circuit lower bounds.
The key enabling ingredient in our approach is a new \emph{pseudorandom
multi-switching lemma}. We derandomize recently-developed
\emph{multi}-switching lemmas, which are powerful generalizations of
H{\aa}stad's switching lemma that deal with \emph{families} of depth-two
circuits. Our pseudorandom multi-switching lemma---a randomness-efficient
algorithm for sampling restrictions that simultaneously simplify all circuits
in a family---achieves the parameters obtained by the (full randomness)
multi-switching lemmas of Impagliazzo, Matthews, and Paturi [IMP12] and
H{\aa}stad [H{\aa}s14]. This optimality of our derandomization translates into
the optimality (given current circuit lower bounds) of our PRGs for
and sparse polynomials
- …