Planar tautologies hard for resolution.

We prove exponential lower bounds on the resolution proofs of some tautologies, based on rectangular grid graphs. More specifically, we show a 2/sup /spl Omega/(n)/ lower bound for any resolution proof of the mutilated chessboard problem on a 2n/spl times/2n chessboard as well as for the Tseitin tautology (G. Tseitin, 1968) based on the n/spl times/n rectangular grid graph. The former result answers a 35 year old conjecture by J. McCarthy (1964)

Stronger two-observer all-versus-nothing violation of local realism

We introduce a two-observer all-versus-nothing proof of Bell's theorem which reduces the number of required quantum predictions from 9 [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 010403 (2001); Z.-B. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 160408 (2003)] to 4, provides a greater amount of evidence against local realism, reduces the detection efficiency requirements for a conclusive experimental test of Bell's theorem, and leads to a Bell's inequality which resembles Mermin's inequality for three observers [N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838 (1990)] but requires only two observers.Comment: REVTeX4, 5 page

Tree resolution proofs of the weak pigeon-hole principle.

We prove that any optimal tree resolution proof of PHPn m is of size 2&thetas;(n log n), independently from m, even if it is infinity. So far, only a 2Ω(n) lower bound has been known in the general case. We also show that any, not necessarily optimal, regular tree resolution proof PHPn m is bounded by 2O(n log m). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the worst case proof complexity has been considered. Finally, we discuss possible connections of our result to Riis' (1999) complexity gap theorem for tree resolution

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

Resolution Lower Bounds for Refutation Statements

For any unsatisfiable CNF formula we give an exponential lower bound on the size of resolution refutations of a propositional statement that the formula has a resolution refutation. We describe three applications. (1) An open question in (Atserias, M\"uller 2019) asks whether a certain natural propositional encoding of the above statement is hard for Resolution. We answer by giving an exponential size lower bound. (2) We show exponential resolution size lower bounds for reflection principles, thereby improving a result in (Atserias, Bonet 2004). (3) We provide new examples of CNFs that exponentially separate Res(2) from Resolution (an exponential separation of these two proof systems was originally proved in (Segerlind, Buss, Impagliazzo 2004))

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

Hardness measures and resolution lower bounds

Various "hardness" measures have been studied for resolution, providing theoretical insight into the proof complexity of resolution and its fragments, as well as explanations for the hardness of instances in SAT solving. In this report we aim at a unified view of a number of hardness measures, including different measures of width, space and size of resolution proofs. We also extend these measures to all clause-sets (possibly satisfiable).Comment: 43 pages, preliminary version (yet the application part is only sketched, with proofs missing

A Tough Nut for Tree Resolution

One of the earliest proposed hard problems for theorem provers isa propositional version of the Mutilated Chessboard problem. It is wellknown from recreational mathematics: Given a chessboard having twodiagonally opposite squares removed, prove that it cannot be covered withdominoes. In Proof Complexity, we consider not ordinary, but 2n * 2nmutilated chessboard. In the paper, we show a 2^Omega(n) lower bound for tree resolution