Efficient enumeration of solutions produced by closure operations

In this paper we address the problem of generating all elements obtained by the saturation of an initial set by some operations. More precisely, we prove that we can generate the closure of a boolean relation (a set of boolean vectors) by polymorphisms with a polynomial delay. Therefore we can compute with polynomial delay the closure of a family of sets by any set of "set operations": union, intersection, symmetric difference, subsets, supersets $\dots$). To do so, we study the $Membership_{\mathcal{F}}$ problem: for a set of operations $\mathcal{F}$, decide whether an element belongs to the closure by $\mathcal{F}$ of a family of elements. In the boolean case, we prove that $Membership_{\mathcal{F}}$ is in P for any set of boolean operations $\mathcal{F}$. When the input vectors are over a domain larger than two elements, we prove that the generic enumeration method fails, since $Membership_{\mathcal{F}}$ is NP-hard for some $\mathcal{F}$. We also study the problem of generating minimal or maximal elements of closures and prove that some of them are related to well known enumeration problems such as the enumeration of the circuits of a matroid or the enumeration of maximal independent sets of a hypergraph. This article improves on previous works of the same authors.Comment: 30 pages, 1 figure. Long version of the article arXiv:1509.05623 of the same name which appeared in STACS 2016. Final version for DMTCS journa

Circuit complexity, proof complexity, and polynomial identity testing

We introduce a new algebraic proof system, which has tight connections to (algebraic) circuit complexity. In particular, we show that any super-polynomial lower bound on any Boolean tautology in our proof system implies that the permanent does not have polynomial-size algebraic circuits (VNP is not equal to VP). As a corollary to the proof, we also show that super-polynomial lower bounds on the number of lines in Polynomial Calculus proofs (as opposed to the usual measure of number of monomials) imply the Permanent versus Determinant Conjecture. Note that, prior to our work, there was no proof system for which lower bounds on an arbitrary tautology implied any computational lower bound. Our proof system helps clarify the relationships between previous algebraic proof systems, and begins to shed light on why proof complexity lower bounds for various proof systems have been so much harder than lower bounds on the corresponding circuit classes. In doing so, we highlight the importance of polynomial identity testing (PIT) for understanding proof complexity. More specifically, we introduce certain propositional axioms satisfied by any Boolean circuit computing PIT. We use these PIT axioms to shed light on AC^0[p]-Frege lower bounds, which have been open for nearly 30 years, with no satisfactory explanation as to their apparent difficulty. We show that either: a) Proving super-polynomial lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege implies VNP does not have polynomial-size circuits of depth d - a notoriously open question for d at least 4 - thus explaining the difficulty of lower bounds on AC^0[p]-Frege, or b) AC^0[p]-Frege cannot efficiently prove the depth d PIT axioms, and hence we have a lower bound on AC^0[p]-Frege. Using the algebraic structure of our proof system, we propose a novel way to extend techniques from algebraic circuit complexity to prove lower bounds in proof complexity

On lower bounds for circuit complexity and algorithms for satisfiability

This work is devoted to explore the novel method of proving circuit lower bounds for the class NEXP by Ryan Williams. Williams is able to show two circuit lower bounds: A conditional lower bound which says that NEXP does not have polynomial size circuits if there exists better-than-trivial algorithms for CIRCUIT SAT and an inconditional lower bound which says that NEXP does not have polynomial size circuits of the class ACC^0. We put special emphasis on the first result by exposing, in as much as of a self-contained manner as possible, all the results from complexity theory that Williams use in his proof. In particular, the focus is put in an efficient reduction from non-deterministic computations to satisfiability of Boolean formulas. The second result is also studied, although not as thoroughly, and some pointers with regards to the relationship of Williams' method and the known complexity theory barriers are given