Semantic Versus Syntactic Cutting Planes

In this paper, we compare the strength of the semantic and syntactic version of the cutting planes proof system. First, we show that the lower bound technique of [22] applies also to semantic cutting planes: the proof system has feasible interpolation via monotone real circuits, which gives an exponential lower bound on lengths of semantic cutting planes refutations. Second, we show that semantic refutations are stronger than syntactic ones. In particular, we give a formula for which any refutation in syntactic cutting planes requires exponential length, while there is a polynomial length refutation in semantic cutting planes. In other words, syntactic cutting planes does not p-simulate semantic cutting planes. We also give two incompatible integer inequalities which require exponential length refutation in syntactic cutting planes. Finally, we pose the following problem, which arises in connection with semantic inference of arity larger than two: can every multivariate non-decreasing real function be expressed as a composition of non-decreasing real functions in two variables

Reordering Rule Makes OBDD Proof Systems Stronger

Atserias, Kolaitis, and Vardi showed that the proof system of Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams with conjunction and weakening, OBDD(^, weakening), simulates CP^* (Cutting Planes with unary coefficients). We show that OBDD(^, weakening) can give exponentially shorter proofs than dag-like cutting planes. This is proved by showing that the Clique-Coloring tautologies have polynomial size proofs in the OBDD(^, weakening) system. The reordering rule allows changing the variable order for OBDDs. We show that OBDD(^, weakening, reordering) is strictly stronger than OBDD(^, weakening). This is proved using the Clique-Coloring tautologies, and by transforming tautologies using coded permutations and orification. We also give CNF formulas which have polynomial size OBDD(^) proofs but require superpolynomial (actually, quasipolynomial size) resolution proofs, and thus we partially resolve an open question proposed by Groote and Zantema. Applying dag-like and tree-like lifting techniques to the mentioned results, we completely analyze which of the systems among CP^*, OBDD(^), OBDD(^, reordering), OBDD(^, weakening) and OBDD(^, weakening, reordering) polynomially simulate each other. For dag-like proof systems, some of our separations are quasipolynomial and some are exponential; for tree-like systems, all of our separations are exponential

Nearly Optimal Communication and Query Complexity of Bipartite Matching

We settle the complexities of the maximum-cardinality bipartite matching problem (BMM) up to poly-logarithmic factors in five models of computation: the two-party communication, AND query, OR query, XOR query, and quantum edge query models. Our results answer open problems that have been raised repeatedly since at least three decades ago [Hajnal, Maass, and Turan STOC'88; Ivanyos, Klauck, Lee, Santha, and de Wolf FSTTCS'12; Dobzinski, Nisan, and Oren STOC'14; Nisan SODA'21] and tighten the lower bounds shown by Beniamini and Nisan [STOC'21] and Zhang [ICALP'04]. We also settle the communication complexity of the generalizations of BMM, such as maximum-cost bipartite $b$-matching and transshipment; and the query complexity of unique bipartite perfect matching (answering an open question by Beniamini [2022]). Our algorithms and lower bounds follow from simple applications of known techniques such as cutting planes methods and set disjointness.Comment: Accepted in FOCS 202

On the Power and Limitations of Branch and Cut

The Stabbing Planes proof system [Paul Beame et al., 2018] was introduced to model the reasoning carried out in practical mixed integer programming solvers. As a proof system, it is powerful enough to simulate Cutting Planes and to refute the Tseitin formulas - certain unsatisfiable systems of linear equations od 2 - which are canonical hard examples for many algebraic proof systems. In a recent (and surprising) result, Dadush and Tiwari [Daniel Dadush and Samarth Tiwari, 2020] showed that these short refutations of the Tseitin formulas could be translated into quasi-polynomial size and depth Cutting Planes proofs, refuting a long-standing conjecture. This translation raises several interesting questions. First, whether all Stabbing Planes proofs can be efficiently simulated by Cutting Planes. This would allow for the substantial analysis done on the Cutting Planes system to be lifted to practical mixed integer programming solvers. Second, whether the quasi-polynomial depth of these proofs is inherent to Cutting Planes. In this paper we make progress towards answering both of these questions. First, we show that any Stabbing Planes proof with bounded coefficients (SP*) can be translated into Cutting Planes. As a consequence of the known lower bounds for Cutting Planes, this establishes the first exponential lower bounds on SP*. Using this translation, we extend the result of Dadush and Tiwari to show that Cutting Planes has short refutations of any unsatisfiable system of linear equations over a finite field. Like the Cutting Planes proofs of Dadush and Tiwari, our refutations also incur a quasi-polynomial blow-up in depth, and we conjecture that this is inherent. As a step towards this conjecture, we develop a new geometric technique for proving lower bounds on the depth of Cutting Planes proofs. This allows us to establish the first lower bounds on the depth of Semantic Cutting Planes proofs of the Tseitin formulas

Certifying Correctness for Combinatorial Algorithms : by Using Pseudo-Boolean Reasoning

Over the last decades, dramatic improvements in combinatorialoptimisation algorithms have significantly impacted artificialintelligence, operations research, and other areas. These advances,however, are achieved through highly sophisticated algorithms that aredifficult to verify and prone to implementation errors that can causeincorrect results. A promising approach to detect wrong results is touse certifying algorithms that produce not only the desired output butalso a certificate or proof of correctness of the output. An externaltool can then verify the proof to determine that the given answer isvalid. In the Boolean satisfiability (SAT) community, this concept iswell established in the form of proof logging, which has become thestandard solution for generating trustworthy outputs. The problem isthat there are still some SAT solving techniques for which prooflogging is challenging and not yet used in practice. Additionally,there are many formalisms more expressive than SAT, such as constraintprogramming, various graph problems and maximum satisfiability(MaxSAT), for which efficient proof logging is out of reach forstate-of-the-art techniques.This work develops a new proof system building on the cutting planesproof system and operating on pseudo-Boolean constraints (0-1 linearinequalities). We explain how such machine-verifiable proofs can becreated for various problems, including parity reasoning, symmetry anddominance breaking, constraint programming, subgraph isomorphism andmaximum common subgraph problems, and pseudo-Boolean problems. Weimplement and evaluate the resulting algorithms and a verifier for theproof format, demonstrating that the approach is practical for a widerange of problems. We are optimistic that the proposed proof system issuitable for designing certifying variants of algorithms inpseudo-Boolean optimisation, MaxSAT and beyond

Mapping Simple Polygons: How Robots Benefit from Looking Back

We consider the problem of mapping an initially unknown polygon of size n with a simple robot that moves inside the polygon along straight lines between the vertices. The robot sees distant vertices in counter-clockwise order and is able to recognize the vertex among them which it came from in its last move, i.e.the robot can look back. Other than that the robot has no means of distinguishing distant vertices. We assume that an upper bound on n is known to the robot beforehand and show that it can always uniquely reconstruct the visibility graph of the polygon. Additionally, we show that multiple identical and deterministic robots can always solve the weak rendezvous problem in which the robots need to position themselves such that all of them are mutually visible to each other. Our results are tight in the sense that the strong rendezvous problem, where robots need to gather at a vertex, cannot be solved in general, and, without knowing a bound beforehand, not even n can be determined. In terms of mobile agents exploring a graph, our result implies that they can reconstruct any graph that is the visibility graph of a simple polygon. This is in contrast to the known result that the reconstruction of arbitrary graphs is impossible in general, even if n is know