SOS Is Not Obviously Automatizable, Even Approximately

Suppose we want to minimize a polynomial p(x) = p(x_1,...,x_n), subject to some polynomial constraints q_1(x),...,q_m(x) >_ 0, using the Sum-of-Squares (SOS) SDP hierarachy. Assume we are in the "explicitly bounded" ("Archimedean") case where the constraints include x_i^2 <_ 1 for all 1 <_ i <_ n. It is often stated that the degree-d version of the SOS hierarchy can be solved, to high accuracy, in time n^O(d). Indeed, I myself have stated this in several previous works. The point of this note is to state (or remind the reader) that this is not obviously true. The difficulty comes not from the "r" in the Ellipsoid Algorithm, but from the "R"; a priori, we only know an exponential upper bound on the number of bits needed to write down the SOS solution. An explicit example is given of a degree-2 SOS program illustrating the difficulty

New Dependencies of Hierarchies in Polynomial Optimization

We compare four key hierarchies for solving Constrained Polynomial Optimization Problems (CPOP): Sum of Squares (SOS), Sum of Diagonally Dominant Polynomials (SDSOS), Sum of Nonnegative Circuits (SONC), and the Sherali Adams (SA) hierarchies. We prove a collection of dependencies among these hierarchies both for general CPOPs and for optimization problems on the Boolean hypercube. Key results include for the general case that the SONC and SOS hierarchy are polynomially incomparable, while SDSOS is contained in SONC. A direct consequence is the non-existence of a Putinar-like Positivstellensatz for SDSOS. On the Boolean hypercube, we show as a main result that Schm\"udgen-like versions of the hierarchies SDSOS*, SONC*, and SA* are polynomially equivalent. Moreover, we show that SA* is contained in any Schm\"udgen-like hierarchy that provides a O(n) degree bound.Comment: 26 pages, 4 figure

On the Bit Complexity of Sum-of-Squares Proofs

It has often been claimed in recent papers that one can find a degree d Sum-of-Squares proof if one exists via the Ellipsoid algorithm. In a recent paper, Ryan O\u27Donnell notes this widely quoted claim is not necessarily true. He presents an example of a polynomial system with bounded coefficients that admits low-degree proofs of non-negativity, but these proofs necessarily involve numbers with an exponential number of bits, causing the Ellipsoid algorithm to take exponential time. In this paper we obtain both positive and negative results on the bit complexity of SoS proofs. First, we propose a sufficient condition on a polynomial system that implies a bound on the coefficients in an SoS proof. We demonstrate that this sufficient condition is applicable for common use-cases of the SoS algorithm, such as Max-CSP, Balanced Separator, Max-Clique, Max-Bisection, and Unit-Vector constraints. On the negative side, O\u27Donnell asked whether every polynomial system containing Boolean constraints admits proofs of polynomial bit complexity. We answer this question in the negative, giving a counterexample system and non-negative polynomial which has degree two SoS proofs, but no SoS proof with small coefficients until degree sqrt(n)

Feasible Interpolation for Polynomial Calculus and Sums-Of-Squares

We prove that both Polynomial Calculus and Sums-of-Squares proof systems admit a strong form of feasible interpolation property for sets of polynomial equality constraints. Precisely, given two sets P(x,z) and Q(y,z) of equality constraints, a refutation ? of P(x,z) ? Q(y,z), and any assignment a to the variables z, one can find a refutation of P(x,a) or a refutation of Q(y,a) in time polynomial in the length of the bit-string encoding the refutation ?. For Sums-of-Squares we rely on the use of Boolean axioms, but for Polynomial Calculus we do not assume their presence

The Ideal Membership Problem and Abelian Groups

Given polynomials $f_0,\dots, f_k$ the Ideal Membership Problem, IMP for short, asks if $f_0$ belongs to the ideal generated by $f_1,\dots, f_k$. In the search version of this problem the task is to find a proof of this fact. The IMP is a well-known fundamental problem with numerous applications, for instance, it underlies many proof systems based on polynomials such as Nullstellensatz, Polynomial Calculus, and Sum-of-Squares. Although the IMP is in general intractable, in many important cases it can be efficiently solved. Mastrolilli [SODA'19] initiated a systematic study of IMPs for ideals arising from Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs), parameterized by constraint languages, denoted IMP($\Gamma$). The ultimate goal of this line of research is to classify all such IMPs accordingly to their complexity. Mastrolilli achieved this goal for IMPs arising from CSP($\Gamma$) where $\Gamma$ is a Boolean constraint language, while Bulatov and Rafiey [ArXiv'21] advanced these results to several cases of CSPs over finite domains. In this paper we consider IMPs arising from CSPs over `affine' constraint languages, in which constraints are subgroups (or their cosets) of direct products of Abelian groups. This kind of CSPs include systems of linear equations and are considered one of the most important types of tractable CSPs. Some special cases of the problem have been considered before by Bharathi and Mastrolilli [MFCS'21] for linear equation modulo 2, and by Bulatov and Rafiey [ArXiv'21] to systems of linear equations over $GF(p)$, $p$ prime. Here we prove that if $\Gamma$ is an affine constraint language then IMP($\Gamma$) is solvable in polynomial time assuming the input polynomial has bounded degree

Short Proofs Are Hard to Find

We obtain a streamlined proof of an important result by Alekhnovich and Razborov [Michael Alekhnovich and Alexander A. Razborov, 2008], showing that it is hard to automatize both tree-like and general Resolution. Under a different assumption than [Michael Alekhnovich and Alexander A. Razborov, 2008], our simplified proof gives improved bounds: we show under ETH that these proof systems are not automatizable in time n^f(n), whenever f(n) = o(log^{1/7 - epsilon} log n) for any epsilon > 0. Previously non-automatizability was only known for f(n) = O(1). Our proof also extends fairly straightforwardly to prove similar hardness results for PCR and Res(r)