Different Approaches to Proof Systems

The classical approach to proof complexity perceives proof systems as deterministic, uniform, surjective, polynomial-time computable functions that map strings to (propositional) tautologies. This approach has been intensively studied since the late 70’s and a lot of progress has been made. During the last years research was started investigating alternative notions of proof systems. There are interesting results stemming from dropping the uniformity requirement, allowing oracle access, using quantum computations, or employing probabilism. These lead to different notions of proof systems for which we survey recent results in this paper

Nondeterministic functions and the existence of optimal proof systems

We provide new characterizations of two previously studied questions on nondeterministic function classes: Q1: Do nondeterministic functions admit efficient deterministic refinements? Q2: Do nondeterministic function classes contain complete functions? We show that Q1 for the class is equivalent to the question whether the standard proof system for SAT is p-optimal, and to the assumption that every optimal proof system is p-optimal. Assuming only the existence of a p-optimal proof system for SAT, we show that every set with an optimal proof system has a p-optimal proof system. Under the latter assumption, we also obtain a positive answer to Q2 for the class . An alternative view on nondeterministic functions is provided by disjoint sets and tuples. We pursue this approach for disjoint -pairs and its generalizations to tuples of sets from and with disjointness conditions of varying strength. In this way, we obtain new characterizations of Q2 for the class . Question Q1 for is equivalent to the question of whether every disjoint -pair is easy to separate. In addition, we characterize this problem by the question of whether every propositional proof system has the effective interpolation property. Again, these interpolation properties are intimately connected to disjoint -pairs, and we show how different interpolation properties can be modeled by -pairs associated with the underlying proof system

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