Polynomial calculus space and resolution width

We show that if a k-CNF requires width w to refute in resolution, then it requires space square root of √ω to refute in polynomial calculus, where the space of a polynomial calculus refutation is the number of monomials that must be kept in memory when working through the proof. This is the first analogue, in polynomial calculus, of Atserias and Dalmau's result lower-bounding clause space in resolution by resolution width. As a by-product of our new approach to space lower bounds we give a simple proof of Bonacina's recent result that total space in resolution (the total number of variable occurrences that must be kept in memory) is lower-bounded by the width squared. As corollaries of the main result we obtain some new lower bounds on the PCR space needed to refute specific formulas, as well as partial answers to some open problems about relations between space, size, and degree for polynomial calculus

A Super-Polynomial Separation Between Resolution and Cut-Free Sequent Calculus

We show a quadratic separation between resolution and cut-free sequent calculus width. We use this gap to get, for the first time, first, a super-polynomial separation between resolution and cut-free sequent calculus for refuting CNF formulas, and secondly, a quadratic separation between resolution width and monomial space in polynomial calculus with resolution. Our super-polynomial separation between resolution and cut-free sequent calculus only applies when clauses are seen as disjunctions of unbounded arity; our examples have linear size cut-free sequent calculus proofs writing, in a particular way, their clauses using binary disjunctions. Interestingly, this shows that the complexity of sequent calculus depends on how disjunctions are represented

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

Space proof complexity for random 3-CNFs

We investigate the space complexity of refuting 3-CNFs in Resolution and algebraic systems. We prove that every Polynomial Calculus with Resolution refutation of a random 3-CNF φ in n variables requires, with high probability, distinct monomials to be kept simultaneously in memory. The same construction also proves that every Resolution refutation of φ requires, with high probability, clauses each of width to be kept at the same time in memory. This gives a lower bound for the total space needed in Resolution to refute φ. These results are best possible (up to a constant factor) and answer questions about space complexity of 3-CNFs

From Small Space to Small Width in Resolution

In 2003, Atserias and Dalmau resolved a major open question about the resolution proof system by establishing that the space complexity of CNF formulas is always an upper bound on the width needed to refute them. Their proof is beautiful but somewhat mysterious in that it relies heavily on tools from finite model theory. We give an alternative, completely elementary proof that works by simple syntactic manipulations of resolution refutations. As a by-product, we develop a "black-box" technique for proving space lower bounds via a "static" complexity measure that works against any resolution refutation---previous techniques have been inherently adaptive. We conclude by showing that the related question for polynomial calculus (i.e., whether space is an upper bound on degree) seems unlikely to be resolvable by similar methods

Narrow Proofs May Be Maximally Long

We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n^Omega(w). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n^O(w) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. Our results do not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, where the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w

Narrow proofs may be maximally long

We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n(Omega(w)). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n(O(w)) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. The lower bound does not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, since we show that there the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft