No proof nets for MLL with units:Proof equivalence in MLL is PSPACE-complete

[Analysis of algorithms and problem complexity]: Nonnumerical algorithms and problems—Complexity of proof procedures Keywords linear logic, proof equivalence, proof nets, constraint logic, PSPACE-completeness MLL proof equivalence is the problem of deciding whether two proofs in multiplicative linear logic are related by a series of inference permutations. It is also known as the word problem for ∗-autonomous categories. Previous work has shown the problem to be equivalent to a rewiring problem on proof nets, which are not canonical for full MLL due to the presence of the two units. Drawing from recent work on reconfiguration problems, in this paper it is shown that MLL proof equivalence is PSPACE-complete, using a reduction from Nondeterministic Constraint Logic. An important consequence of the result is that the existence of a satisfactory notion of proof nets for MLL with units is ruled out (under current complexity assumptions). 1

MALL proof equivalence is Logspace-complete, via binary decision diagrams

Proof equivalence in a logic is the problem of deciding whether two proofs are equivalent modulo a set of permutation of rules that reflects the commutative conversions of its cut-elimination procedure. As such, it is related to the question of proofnets: finding canonical representatives of equivalence classes of proofs that have good computational properties. It can also be seen as the word problem for the notion of free category corresponding to the logic. It has been recently shown that proof equivalence in MLL (the multiplicative with units fragment of linear logic) is PSPACE-complete, which rules out any low-complexity notion of proofnet for this particular logic. Since it is another fragment of linear logic for which attempts to define a fully satisfactory low-complexity notion of proofnet have not been successful so far, we study proof equivalence in MALL- (multiplicative-additive without units fragment of linear logic) and discover a situation that is totally different from the MLL case. Indeed, we show that proof equivalence in MALL- corresponds (under AC0 reductions) to equivalence of binary decision diagrams, a data structure widely used to represent and analyze Boolean functions efficiently. We show these two equivalent problems to be LOGSPACE-complete. If this technically leaves open the possibility for a complete solution to the question of proofnets for MALL-, the established relation with binary decision diagrams actually suggests a negative solution to this problem.Comment: in TLCA 201

Multiplicative-Additive Proof Equivalence is Logspace-complete, via Binary Decision Trees

Given a logic presented in a sequent calculus, a natural question is that of equivalence of proofs: to determine whether two given proofs are equated by any denotational semantics, ie any categorical interpretation of the logic compatible with its cut-elimination procedure. This notion can usually be captured syntactically by a set of rule permutations. Very generally, proofnets can be defined as combinatorial objects which provide canonical representatives of equivalence classes of proofs. In particular, the existence of proof nets for a logic provides a solution to the equivalence problem of this logic. In certain fragments of linear logic, it is possible to give a notion of proofnet with good computational properties, making it a suitable representation of proofs for studying the cut-elimination procedure, among other things. It has recently been proved that there cannot be such a notion of proofnets for the multiplicative (with units) fragment of linear logic, due to the equivalence problem for this logic being Pspace-complete. We investigate the multiplicative-additive (without unit) fragment of linear logic and show it is closely related to binary decision trees: we build a representation of proofs based on binary decision trees, reducing proof equivalence to decision tree equivalence, and give a converse encoding of binary decision trees as proofs. We get as our main result that the complexity of the proof equivalence problem of the studied fragment is Logspace-complete.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1502.0199

Proof Diagrams for Multiplicative Linear Logic

The original idea of proof nets can be formulated by means of interaction nets syntax. Additional machinery as switching, jumps and graph connectivity is needed in order to ensure correspondence between a proof structure and a correct proof in sequent calculus. In this paper we give an interpretation of proof nets in the syntax of string diagrams. Even though we lose standard proof equivalence, our construction allows to define a framework where soundness and well-typeness of a diagram can be verified in linear time.Comment: In Proceedings LINEARITY 2016, arXiv:1701.0452

Homomorphism Reconfiguration via Homotopy

We consider the following problem for a fixed graph H: given a graph G and two H-colorings of G, i.e. homomorphisms from G to H, can one be transformed into the other by changing one color at a time, maintaining an H-coloring throughout.This is the same as finding a path in the Hom(G,H) complex. For H=K_k this is the problem of finding paths between k-colorings, which was recently shown to be in P for kleq 3 and PSPACE-complete otherwise (Bonsma and Cereceda 2009, Cereceda et al. 2011). We generalize the positive side of this dichotomy by providing an algorithm that solves the problem in polynomial time for any H with no C_4 subgraph. This gives a large class of constraints for which finding solutions to the Constraint Satisfaction Problem is NP-complete, but paths in the solution space can be found in polynomial time. The algorithm uses a characterization of possible reconfiguration sequences (that is, paths in Hom(G,H)), whose main part is a purely topological condition described in terms of the fundamental groupoid of H seen as a topological space

Fixed-Parameter Algorithms for Graph Constraint Logic

Non-deterministic constraint logic (NCL) is a simple model of computation based on orientations of a constraint graph with edge weights and vertex demands. NCL captures PSPACE and has been a useful tool for proving algorithmic hardness of many puzzles, games, and reconfiguration problems. In particular, its usefulness stems from the fact that it remains PSPACE-complete even under severe restrictions of the weights (e.g., only edge-weights one and two are needed) and the structure of the constraint graph (e.g., planar AND/OR graphs of bounded bandwidth). While such restrictions on the structure of constraint graphs do not seem to limit the expressiveness of NCL, the building blocks of the constraint graphs cannot be limited without losing expressiveness: We consider as parameters the number of weight-one edges and the number of weight-two edges of a constraint graph, as well as the number of AND or OR vertices of an AND/OR constraint graph. We show that NCL is fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) for any of these parameters. In particular, for NCL parameterized by the number of weight-one edges or the number of AND vertices, we obtain a linear kernel. It follows that, in a sense, NCL as introduced by Hearn and Demaine is defined in the most economical way for the purpose of capturing PSPACE