An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New

Partial Quantifier Elimination By Certificate Clauses

We study partial quantifier elimination (PQE) for propositional CNF formulas. In contrast to full quantifier elimination, in PQE, one can limit the set of clauses taken out of the scope of quantifiers to a small subset of target clauses. The appeal of PQE is twofold. First, PQE can be dramatically simpler than full quantifier elimination. Second, it provides a language for performing incremental computations. Many verification problems (e.g. equivalence checking and model checking) are inherently incremental and so can be solved in terms of PQE. Our approach is based on deriving clauses depending only on unquantified variables that make the target clauses $\mathit{redundant}$. Proving redundancy of a target clause is done by construction of a ``certificate'' clause implying the former. We describe a PQE algorithm called $\mathit{START}$ that employs the approach above. We apply $\mathit{START}$ to generating properties of a design implementation that are not implied by specification. The existence of an $\mathit{unwanted}$ property means that this implementation is buggy. Our experiments with HWMCC-13 benchmarks suggest that $\mathit{START}$ can be used for generating properties of real-life designs

Consistency of circuit lower bounds with bounded theories

Proving that there are problems in $\mathsf{P}^\mathsf{NP}$ that require boolean circuits of super-linear size is a major frontier in complexity theory. While such lower bounds are known for larger complexity classes, existing results only show that the corresponding problems are hard on infinitely many input lengths. For instance, proving almost-everywhere circuit lower bounds is open even for problems in $\mathsf{MAEXP}$. Giving the notorious difficulty of proving lower bounds that hold for all large input lengths, we ask the following question: Can we show that a large set of techniques cannot prove that $\mathsf{NP}$ is easy infinitely often? Motivated by this and related questions about the interaction between mathematical proofs and computations, we investigate circuit complexity from the perspective of logic. Among other results, we prove that for any parameter $k \geq 1$ it is consistent with theory $T$ that computational class ${\mathcal C} \not \subseteq \textit{i.o.}\mathrm{SIZE}(n^k)$, where $(T, \mathcal{C})$ is one of the pairs: $T = \mathsf{T}^1_2$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{P}^\mathsf{NP}$, $T = \mathsf{S}^1_2$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{NP}$, $T = \mathsf{PV}$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{P}$. In other words, these theories cannot establish infinitely often circuit upper bounds for the corresponding problems. This is of interest because the weaker theory $\mathsf{PV}$ already formalizes sophisticated arguments, such as a proof of the PCP Theorem. These consistency statements are unconditional and improve on earlier theorems of [KO17] and [BM18] on the consistency of lower bounds with $\mathsf{PV}$

Extending ACL2 with SMT Solvers

We present our extension of ACL2 with Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solvers using ACL2's trusted clause processor mechanism. We are particularly interested in the verification of physical systems including Analog and Mixed-Signal (AMS) designs. ACL2 offers strong induction abilities for reasoning about sequences and SMT complements deduction methods like ACL2 with fast nonlinear arithmetic solving procedures. While SAT solvers have been integrated into ACL2 in previous work, SMT methods raise new issues because of their support for a broader range of domains including real numbers and uninterpreted functions. This paper presents Smtlink, our clause processor for integrating SMT solvers into ACL2. We describe key design and implementation issues and describe our experience with its use.Comment: In Proceedings ACL2 2015, arXiv:1509.0552