Consistency of circuit lower bounds with bounded theories

Proving that there are problems in $\mathsf{P}^\mathsf{NP}$ that require boolean circuits of super-linear size is a major frontier in complexity theory. While such lower bounds are known for larger complexity classes, existing results only show that the corresponding problems are hard on infinitely many input lengths. For instance, proving almost-everywhere circuit lower bounds is open even for problems in $\mathsf{MAEXP}$. Giving the notorious difficulty of proving lower bounds that hold for all large input lengths, we ask the following question: Can we show that a large set of techniques cannot prove that $\mathsf{NP}$ is easy infinitely often? Motivated by this and related questions about the interaction between mathematical proofs and computations, we investigate circuit complexity from the perspective of logic. Among other results, we prove that for any parameter $k \geq 1$ it is consistent with theory $T$ that computational class ${\mathcal C} \not \subseteq \textit{i.o.}\mathrm{SIZE}(n^k)$, where $(T, \mathcal{C})$ is one of the pairs: $T = \mathsf{T}^1_2$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{P}^\mathsf{NP}$, $T = \mathsf{S}^1_2$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{NP}$, $T = \mathsf{PV}$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{P}$. In other words, these theories cannot establish infinitely often circuit upper bounds for the corresponding problems. This is of interest because the weaker theory $\mathsf{PV}$ already formalizes sophisticated arguments, such as a proof of the PCP Theorem. These consistency statements are unconditional and improve on earlier theorems of [KO17] and [BM18] on the consistency of lower bounds with $\mathsf{PV}$

Conformant Planning as a Case Study of Incremental QBF Solving

We consider planning with uncertainty in the initial state as a case study of incremental quantified Boolean formula (QBF) solving. We report on experiments with a workflow to incrementally encode a planning instance into a sequence of QBFs. To solve this sequence of incrementally constructed QBFs, we use our general-purpose incremental QBF solver DepQBF. Since the generated QBFs have many clauses and variables in common, our approach avoids redundancy both in the encoding phase and in the solving phase. Experimental results show that incremental QBF solving outperforms non-incremental QBF solving. Our results are the first empirical study of incremental QBF solving in the context of planning and motivate its use in other application domains.Comment: added reference to extended journal article; revision (camera-ready, to appear in the proceedings of AISC 2014, volume 8884 of LNAI, Springer

The Complexity of Kings

A king in a directed graph is a node from which each node in the graph can be reached via paths of length at most two. There is a broad literature on tournaments (completely oriented digraphs), and it has been known for more than half a century that all tournaments have at least one king [Lan53]. Recently, kings have proven useful in theoretical computer science, in particular in the study of the complexity of the semifeasible sets [HNP98,HT05] and in the study of the complexity of reachability problems [Tan01,NT02]. In this paper, we study the complexity of recognizing kings. For each succinctly specified family of tournaments, the king problem is known to belong to $\Pi_2^p$ [HOZZ]. We prove that this bound is optimal: We construct a succinctly specified tournament family whose king problem is $\Pi_2^p$-complete. It follows easily from our proof approach that the problem of testing kingship in succinctly specified graphs (which need not be tournaments) is $\Pi_2^p$-complete. We also obtain $\Pi_2^p$-completeness results for k-kings in succinctly specified j-partite tournaments, $k,j \geq 2$, and we generalize our main construction to show that $\Pi_2^p$-completeness holds for testing k-kingship in succinctly specified families of tournaments for all $k \geq 2$