Nondeterministic functions and the existence of optimal proof systems

We provide new characterizations of two previously studied questions on nondeterministic function classes: Q1: Do nondeterministic functions admit efficient deterministic refinements? Q2: Do nondeterministic function classes contain complete functions? We show that Q1 for the class is equivalent to the question whether the standard proof system for SAT is p-optimal, and to the assumption that every optimal proof system is p-optimal. Assuming only the existence of a p-optimal proof system for SAT, we show that every set with an optimal proof system has a p-optimal proof system. Under the latter assumption, we also obtain a positive answer to Q2 for the class . An alternative view on nondeterministic functions is provided by disjoint sets and tuples. We pursue this approach for disjoint -pairs and its generalizations to tuples of sets from and with disjointness conditions of varying strength. In this way, we obtain new characterizations of Q2 for the class . Question Q1 for is equivalent to the question of whether every disjoint -pair is easy to separate. In addition, we characterize this problem by the question of whether every propositional proof system has the effective interpolation property. Again, these interpolation properties are intimately connected to disjoint -pairs, and we show how different interpolation properties can be modeled by -pairs associated with the underlying proof system

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

On the existence of complete disjoint NP-pairs

Disjoint NP-pairs are an interesting model of computation with important applications in cryptography and proof complexity. The question whether there exists a complete disjoint NP-pair was posed by Razborov in 1994 and is one of the most important problems in the field. In this paper we prove that there exists a many-one hard disjoint NP-pair which is computed with access to a very weak oracle (a tally NP-oracle). In addition, we exhibit candidates for complete NP-pairs and apply our results to a recent line of research on the construction of hard tautologies from pseudorandom generators

Polylogarithmic Cuts in Models of V^0

We study initial cuts of models of weak two-sorted Bounded Arithmetics with respect to the strength of their theories and show that these theories are stronger than the original one. More explicitly we will see that polylogarithmic cuts of models of $\mathbf{V}^0$ are models of $\mathbf{VNC}^1$ by formalizing a proof of Nepomnjascij's Theorem in such cuts. This is a strengthening of a result by Paris and Wilkie. We can then exploit our result in Proof Complexity to observe that Frege proof systems can be sub exponentially simulated by bounded depth Frege proof systems. This result has recently been obtained by Filmus, Pitassi and Santhanam in a direct proof. As an interesting observation we also obtain an average case separation of Resolution from AC0-Frege by applying a recent result with Tzameret.Comment: 16 page

Parameterized bounded-depth Frege is not optimal

A general framework for parameterized proof complexity was introduced by Dantchev, Martin, and Szeider [9]. There the authors concentrate on tree-like Parameterized Resolution-a parameterized version of classical Resolution-and their gap complexity theorem implies lower bounds for that system. The main result of the present paper significantly improves upon this by showing optimal lower bounds for a parameterized version of bounded-depth Frege. More precisely, we prove that the pigeonhole principle requires proofs of size n in parameterized bounded-depth Frege, and, as a special case, in dag-like Parameterized Resolution. This answers an open question posed in [9]. In the opposite direction, we interpret a well-known technique for FPT algorithms as a DPLL procedure for Parameterized Resolution. Its generalization leads to a proof search algorithm for Parameterized Resolution that in particular shows that tree-like Parameterized Resolution allows short refutations of all parameterized contradictions given as bounded-width CNF's

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