Depth Lower Bounds in Stabbing Planes for Combinatorial Principles

We prove logarithmic depth lower bounds in Stabbing Planes for the classes of combinatorial principles known as the Pigeonhole principle and the Tseitin contradictions. The depth lower bounds are new, obtained by giving almost linear length lower bounds which do not depend on the bit-size of the inequalities and in the case of the Pigeonhole principle are tight. The technique known so far to prove depth lower bounds for Stabbing Planes is a generalization of that used for the Cutting Planes proof system. In this work we introduce two new approaches to prove length/depth lower bounds in Stabbing Planes: one relying on Sperner's Theorem which works for the Pigeonhole principle and Tseitin contradictions over the complete graph; a second proving the lower bound for Tseitin contradictions over a grid graph, which uses a result on essential coverings of the boolean cube by linear polynomials, which in turn relies on Alon's combinatorial Nullenstellensatz

Stabbing Planes

We introduce and develop a new semi-algebraic proof system, called Stabbing Planes that is in the style of DPLL-based modern SAT solvers. As with DPLL, there is only one rule: the current polytope can be subdivided by branching on an inequality and its "integer negation." That is, we can (nondeterministically choose) a hyperplane a x >= b with integer coefficients, which partitions the polytope into three pieces: the points in the polytope satisfying a x >= b, the points satisfying a x <= b-1, and the middle slab b-1 < a x < b. Since the middle slab contains no integer points it can be safely discarded, and the algorithm proceeds recursively on the other two branches. Each path terminates when the current polytope is empty, which is polynomial-time checkable. Among our results, we show somewhat surprisingly that Stabbing Planes can efficiently simulate Cutting Planes, and moreover, is strictly stronger than Cutting Planes under a reasonable conjecture. We prove linear lower bounds on the rank of Stabbing Planes refutations, by adapting a lifting argument in communication complexity

Resolution over Linear Equations and Multilinear Proofs

We develop and study the complexity of propositional proof systems of varying strength extending resolution by allowing it to operate with disjunctions of linear equations instead of clauses. We demonstrate polynomial-size refutations for hard tautologies like the pigeonhole principle, Tseitin graph tautologies and the clique-coloring tautologies in these proof systems. Using the (monotone) interpolation by a communication game technique we establish an exponential-size lower bound on refutations in a certain, considerably strong, fragment of resolution over linear equations, as well as a general polynomial upper bound on (non-monotone) interpolants in this fragment. We then apply these results to extend and improve previous results on multilinear proofs (over fields of characteristic 0), as studied in [RazTzameret06]. Specifically, we show the following: 1. Proofs operating with depth-3 multilinear formulas polynomially simulate a certain, considerably strong, fragment of resolution over linear equations. 2. Proofs operating with depth-3 multilinear formulas admit polynomial-size refutations of the pigeonhole principle and Tseitin graph tautologies. The former improve over a previous result that established small multilinear proofs only for the \emph{functional} pigeonhole principle. The latter are different than previous proofs, and apply to multilinear proofs of Tseitin mod p graph tautologies over any field of characteristic 0. We conclude by connecting resolution over linear equations with extensions of the cutting planes proof system.Comment: 44 page

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

Proof Complexity and Beyond

Proof complexity is a multi-disciplinary intellectual endeavor that addresses questions of the general form “how difficult is it to prove certain mathematical facts?” The current workshop focused on recent advances in our understanding of logic-based proof systems and on connections to algorithms, geometry and combinatorics research, such as the analysis of approximation algorithms, or the size of linear or semidefinite programming formulations of combinatorial optimization problems, to name just two important examples

Depth lower bounds in Stabbing Planes for combinatorial principles

Stabbing Planes (also known as Branch and Cut) is a proof system introduced very recently which, informally speaking, extends the DPLL method by branching on integer linear inequalities instead of single variables. The techniques known so far to prove size and depth lower bounds for Stabbing Planes are generalizations of those used for the Cutting Planes proof system. For size lower bounds these are established by monotone circuit arguments, while for depth these are found via communication complexity and protection. As such these bounds apply for lifted versions of combinatorial statements. Rank lower bounds for Cutting Planes are also obtained by geometric arguments called protection lemmas. In this work we introduce two new geometric approaches to prove size/depth lower bounds in Stabbing Planes working for any formula: (1) the antichain method, relying on Sperner's Theorem and (2) the covering method which uses results on essential coverings of the boolean cube by linear polynomials, which in turn relies on Alon's combinatorial Nullenstellensatz. We demonstrate their use on classes of combinatorial principles such as the Pigeonhole principle, the Tseitin contradictions and the Linear Ordering Principle. By the first method we prove almost linear size lower bounds and optimal logarithmic depth lower bounds for the Pigeonhole principle and analogous lower bounds for the Tseitin contradictions over the complete graph and for the Linear Ordering Principle. By the covering method we obtain a superlinear size lower bound and a logarithmic depth lower bound for Stabbing Planes proof of Tseitin contradictions over a grid graph

Non-Archimedean Analytic Geometry

The workshop focused on recent developments in non-Archimedean analytic geometry with various applications to arithmetic and algebraic geometry. These applications include questions in Arakelov theory, p-adic differential equations, p-adic Hodge theory and the geometry of moduli spaces. Various methods were used in combination with analytic geometry, in particular perfectoid spaces, model theory, skeleta, formal geometry and tropical geometry

Complexity of optimizing over the integers

In the first part of this paper, we present a unified framework for analyzing the algorithmic complexity of any optimization problem, whether it be continuous or discrete in nature. This helps to formalize notions like "input", "size" and "complexity" in the context of general mathematical optimization, avoiding context dependent definitions which is one of the sources of difference in the treatment of complexity within continuous and discrete optimization. In the second part of the paper, we employ the language developed in the first part to study information theoretic and algorithmic complexity of {\em mixed-integer convex optimization}, which contains as a special case continuous convex optimization on the one hand and pure integer optimization on the other. We strive for the maximum possible generality in our exposition. We hope that this paper contains material that both continuous optimizers and discrete optimizers find new and interesting, even though almost all of the material presented is common knowledge in one or the other community. We see the main merit of this paper as bringing together all of this information under one unifying umbrella with the hope that this will act as yet another catalyst for more interaction across the continuous-discrete divide. In fact, our motivation behind Part I of the paper is to provide a common language for both communities