On the Algebraic Proof Complexity of Tensor Isomorphism

The Tensor Isomorphism problem (TI) has recently emerged as having connections to multiple areas of research within complexity and beyond, but the current best upper bound is essentially the brute force algorithm. Being an algebraic problem, TI (or rather, proving that two tensors are non-isomorphic) lends itself very naturally to algebraic and semi-algebraic proof systems, such as the Polynomial Calculus (PC) and Sum of Squares (SoS). For its combinatorial cousin Graph Isomorphism, essentially optimal lower bounds are known for approaches based on PC and SoS (Berkholz & Grohe, SODA \u2717). Our main results are an ?(n) lower bound on PC degree or SoS degree for Tensor Isomorphism, and a nontrivial upper bound for testing isomorphism of tensors of bounded rank. We also show that PC cannot perform basic linear algebra in sub-linear degree, such as comparing the rank of two matrices (which is essentially the same as 2-TI), or deriving BA = I from AB = I. As linear algebra is a key tool for understanding tensors, we introduce a strictly stronger proof system, PC+Inv, which allows as derivation rules all substitution instances of the implication AB = I ? BA = I. We conjecture that even PC+Inv cannot solve TI in polynomial time either, but leave open getting lower bounds on PC+Inv for any system of equations, let alone those for TI. We also highlight many other open questions about proof complexity approaches to TI

Polynomial Identity Testing and the Ideal Proof System: PIT is in NP if and only if IPS can be p-simulated by a Cook-Reckhow proof system

The Ideal Proof System (IPS) of Grochow & Pitassi (FOCS 2014, J. ACM, 2018) is an algebraic proof system that uses algebraic circuits to refute the solvability of unsatisfiable systems of polynomial equations. One potential drawback of IPS is that verifying an IPS proof is only known to be doable using Polynomial Identity Testing (PIT), which is solvable by a randomized algorithm, but whose derandomization, even into NSUBEXP, is equivalent to strong lower bounds. However, the circuits that are used in IPS proofs are not arbitrary, and it is conceivable that one could get around general PIT by leveraging some structure in these circuits. This proposal may be even more tempting when IPS is used as a proof system for Boolean Unsatisfiability, where the equations themselves have additional structure. Our main result is that, on the contrary, one cannot get around PIT as above: we show that IPS, even as a proof system for Boolean Unsatisfiability, can be p-simulated by a deterministically verifiable (Cook-Reckhow) proof system if and only if PIT is in NP. We use our main result to propose a potentially new approach to derandomizing PIT into NP

Proof Complexity (Dagstuhl Seminar 18051)

The study of proof complexity was initiated in [Cook and Reckhow 1979] as a way to attack the P vs.NP problem, and in the ensuing decades many powerful techniques have been discovered for analyzing different proof systems. Proof complexity also gives a way of studying subsystems of Peano Arithmetic where the power of mathematical reasoning is restricted, and to quantify how complex different mathematical theorems are measured in terms of the strength of the methods of reasoning required to establish their validity. Moreover, it allows to analyse the power and limitations of satisfiability algorithms (SAT solvers) used in industrial applications with formulas containing up to millions of variables. During the last 10--15 years the area of proof complexity has seen a revival with many exciting results, and new connections have also been revealed with other areas such as, e.g., cryptography, algebraic complexity theory, communication complexity, and combinatorial optimization. While many longstanding open problems from the 1980s and 1990s still remain unsolved, recent progress gives hope that the area may be ripe for decisive breakthroughs. This workshop, gathering researchers from different strands of the proof complexity community, gave opportunities to take stock of where we stand and discuss the way ahead