214 research outputs found
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
Rank Lower Bounds in Propositional Proof Systems Based on Integer Linear Programming Methods
The work of this thesis is in the area of proof complexity, an area which looks to uncover the limitations of proof systems. In this thesis we investigate the rank complexity of tautologies for several of the most important proof systems based on integer linear programming methods. The three main contributions of this thesis are as follows:
Firstly we develop the first rank lower bounds for the proof system based on
the Sherali-Adams operator and show that both the Pigeonhole and Least Number Principles require linear rank in this system. We also demonstrate a link between the complexity measures of Sherali-Adams rank and Resolution width.
Secondly we present a novel method for deriving rank lower bounds in the well-studied Cutting Planes proof system. We use this technique to show that the Cutting Plane rank of the Pigeonhole Principle is logarithmic. Finally we separate the complexity measures of Resolution width and Sherali-Adams rank from the complexity measures of Lovasz and Schrijver rank and Cutting Planes rank
From proof complexity to circuit complexity via interactive protocols
Folklore in complexity theory suspects that circuit lower bounds against NC1 or P/poly, currently
out of reach, are a necessary step towards proving strong proof complexity lower bounds for systems like Frege or Extended Frege. Establishing such a connection formally, however, is already daunting, as it would imply the breakthrough separation NEXP ⊈ P/poly, as recently observed by Pich and Santhanam [Pich and Santhanam, 2023].
We show such a connection conditionally for the Implicit Extended Frege proof system (iEF) introduced by Krajíček [Krajíček, 2004], capable of formalizing most of contemporary complexity theory. In particular, we show that if iEF proves efficiently the standard derandomization assumption that a concrete Boolean function is hard on average for subexponential-size circuits, then any superpolynomial lower bound on the length of iEF proofs implies #P ⊈ FP/poly (which would in turn imply, for example, PSPACE ⊈ P/poly). Our proof exploits the formalization inside iEF of the soundness of the sum-check protocol of Lund, Fortnow, Karloff, and Nisan [Lund et al., 1992]. This has consequences for the self-provability of circuit upper bounds in iEF. Interestingly, further improving our result seems to require progress in constructing interactive proof systems with more efficient provers
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
Proof Complexity of Modal Resolution Systems
In this thesis we initiate the study of the proof complexity of modal resolution systems. To our knowledge there is no previous work on the proof complexity of such systems. This is in sharp contrast to the situation for propositional logic where resolution is the most studied proof system, in part due to its close links with satisfiability solving.
We focus primarily on the proof complexity of two recently proposed modal resolution systems of Nalon, Hustadt and Dixon, one of which forms the basis of an existing modal theorem prover. We begin by showing that not only are these two proof systems equivalent in terms of their proof complexity, they are also equivalent to a number of natural refinements. We further compare the proof complexity of these systems with an older, more complicated modal resolution system of Enjalbert and Farinas del Cerro, showing that this older system p-simulates the more streamlined calculi.
We then investigate lower bound techniques for modal resolution. Here we see that whilst some propositional lower bound techniques (i.e. feasible interpolation) can be lifted to the modal setting with only minor modifications, other propositional techniques (i.e. size-width) fail completely. We further develop a new lower bound technique for modal resolution using Prover-Delayer games. This technique can be used to establish "genuine" modal lower bounds (i.e lower bounds on the number of modal inferences) for the size of tree-like modal resolution proofs. We apply this technique to a new family of modal formulas, called the modal pigeonhole principle to demonstrate that these formulas require exponential size modal resolution proofs.
Finally we compare the proof complexity of tree-like modal resolution systems with that of modal Frege systems, using our modal pigeonhole principle to obtain a "genuinely" modal separation between them
MaxSAT Resolution and Subcube Sums
We study the MaxRes rule in the context of certifying unsatisfiability. We
show that it can be exponentially more powerful than tree-like resolution, and
when augmented with weakening (the system MaxResW), p-simulates tree-like
resolution. In devising a lower bound technique specific to MaxRes (and not
merely inheriting lower bounds from Res), we define a new proof system called
the SubCubeSums proof system. This system, which p-simulates MaxResW, can be
viewed as a special case of the semialgebraic Sherali-Adams proof system. In
expressivity, it is the integral restriction of conical juntas studied in the
contexts of communication complexity and extension complexity. We show that it
is not simulated by Res. Using a proof technique qualitatively different from
the lower bounds that MaxResW inherits from Res, we show that Tseitin
contradictions on expander graphs are hard to refute in SubCubeSums. We also
establish a lower bound technique via lifting: for formulas requiring large
degree in SubCubeSums, their XOR-ification requires large size in SubCubeSums
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
Disjoint NP-pairs from propositional proof systems
For a proof system P we introduce the complexity class DNPP(P) of all disjoint NP-pairs for which the disjointness of the pair is efficiently provable in the proof system P. We exhibit structural properties of proof systems which make the previously defined canonical NP-pairs of these proof systems hard or complete for DNPP(P). Moreover we demonstrate that non-equivalent proof systems can have equivalent canonical pairs and that depending on the properties of the proof systems different scenarios for DNPP(P) and the reductions between the canonical pairs exist
- …