Semantic Versus Syntactic Cutting Planes

In this paper, we compare the strength of the semantic and syntactic version of the cutting planes proof system. First, we show that the lower bound technique of [22] applies also to semantic cutting planes: the proof system has feasible interpolation via monotone real circuits, which gives an exponential lower bound on lengths of semantic cutting planes refutations. Second, we show that semantic refutations are stronger than syntactic ones. In particular, we give a formula for which any refutation in syntactic cutting planes requires exponential length, while there is a polynomial length refutation in semantic cutting planes. In other words, syntactic cutting planes does not p-simulate semantic cutting planes. We also give two incompatible integer inequalities which require exponential length refutation in syntactic cutting planes. Finally, we pose the following problem, which arises in connection with semantic inference of arity larger than two: can every multivariate non-decreasing real function be expressed as a composition of non-decreasing real functions in two variables

On the Power and Limitations of Branch and Cut

The Stabbing Planes proof system [Paul Beame et al., 2018] was introduced to model the reasoning carried out in practical mixed integer programming solvers. As a proof system, it is powerful enough to simulate Cutting Planes and to refute the Tseitin formulas - certain unsatisfiable systems of linear equations od 2 - which are canonical hard examples for many algebraic proof systems. In a recent (and surprising) result, Dadush and Tiwari [Daniel Dadush and Samarth Tiwari, 2020] showed that these short refutations of the Tseitin formulas could be translated into quasi-polynomial size and depth Cutting Planes proofs, refuting a long-standing conjecture. This translation raises several interesting questions. First, whether all Stabbing Planes proofs can be efficiently simulated by Cutting Planes. This would allow for the substantial analysis done on the Cutting Planes system to be lifted to practical mixed integer programming solvers. Second, whether the quasi-polynomial depth of these proofs is inherent to Cutting Planes. In this paper we make progress towards answering both of these questions. First, we show that any Stabbing Planes proof with bounded coefficients (SP*) can be translated into Cutting Planes. As a consequence of the known lower bounds for Cutting Planes, this establishes the first exponential lower bounds on SP*. Using this translation, we extend the result of Dadush and Tiwari to show that Cutting Planes has short refutations of any unsatisfiable system of linear equations over a finite field. Like the Cutting Planes proofs of Dadush and Tiwari, our refutations also incur a quasi-polynomial blow-up in depth, and we conjecture that this is inherent. As a step towards this conjecture, we develop a new geometric technique for proving lower bounds on the depth of Cutting Planes proofs. This allows us to establish the first lower bounds on the depth of Semantic Cutting Planes proofs of the Tseitin formulas

LIPIcs

We study space complexity and time-space trade-offs with a focus not on peak memory usage but on overall memory consumption throughout the computation. Such a cumulative space measure was introduced for the computational model of parallel black pebbling by [Alwen and Serbinenko ’15] as a tool for obtaining results in cryptography. We consider instead the non- deterministic black-white pebble game and prove optimal cumulative space lower bounds and trade-offs, where in order to minimize pebbling time the space has to remain large during a significant fraction of the pebbling. We also initiate the study of cumulative space in proof complexity, an area where other space complexity measures have been extensively studied during the last 10–15 years. Using and extending the connection between proof complexity and pebble games in [Ben-Sasson and Nordström ’08, ’11] we obtain several strong cumulative space results for (even parallel versions of) the resolution proof system, and outline some possible future directions of study of this, in our opinion, natural and interesting space measure

Understanding Cutting Planes for QBFs

We define a cutting planes system CP+8red for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and analyse the proof-theoretic strength of this new calculus. While in the propositional case, Cutting Planes is of intermediate strength between resolution and Frege, our findings here show that the situation in QBF is slightly more complex: while CP+8red is again weaker than QBF Frege and stronger than the CDCL-based QBF resolution systems Q-Res and QU-Res, it turns out to be incomparable to even the weakest expansion-based QBF resolution system 8Exp+Res. Technically, our results establish the effectiveness of two lower boun

Stabbing Planes

We introduce and develop a new semi-algebraic proof system, called Stabbing Planes that is in the style of DPLL-based modern SAT solvers. As with DPLL, there is only one rule: the current polytope can be subdivided by branching on an inequality and its "integer negation." That is, we can (nondeterministically choose) a hyperplane a x >= b with integer coefficients, which partitions the polytope into three pieces: the points in the polytope satisfying a x >= b, the points satisfying a x <= b-1, and the middle slab b-1 < a x < b. Since the middle slab contains no integer points it can be safely discarded, and the algorithm proceeds recursively on the other two branches. Each path terminates when the current polytope is empty, which is polynomial-time checkable. Among our results, we show somewhat surprisingly that Stabbing Planes can efficiently simulate Cutting Planes, and moreover, is strictly stronger than Cutting Planes under a reasonable conjecture. We prove linear lower bounds on the rank of Stabbing Planes refutations, by adapting a lifting argument in communication complexity

On the Nature of Models: The Unfinished Debate

Review: Ippoliti, Emiliano, Sterpetti, Fabio, Nickles Thomas : Models and Inferences in Science