Tree resolution proofs of the weak pigeon-hole principle.

We prove that any optimal tree resolution proof of PHPn m is of size 2&thetas;(n log n), independently from m, even if it is infinity. So far, only a 2Ω(n) lower bound has been known in the general case. We also show that any, not necessarily optimal, regular tree resolution proof PHPn m is bounded by 2O(n log m). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the worst case proof complexity has been considered. Finally, we discuss possible connections of our result to Riis' (1999) complexity gap theorem for tree resolution

A lower bound for the pigeonhole principle in tree-like Resolution by asymmetric Prover-Delayer games

In this note we show that the asymmetric Prover–Delayer game developed in Beyersdorff et al. (2010) [2] for Parameterized Resolution is also applicable to other tree-like proof systems. In particular, we use this asymmetric Prover–Delayer game to show a lower bound of the form 2Ω(nlogn) for the pigeonhole principle in tree-like Resolution. This gives a new and simpler proof of the same lower bound established by Iwama and Miyazaki (1999) [7] and Dantchev and Riis (2001) [5]

Narrow Proofs May Be Maximally Long

We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n^Omega(w). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n^O(w) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. Our results do not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, where the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w

Narrow proofs may be maximally long

We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n(Omega(w)). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n(O(w)) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. The lower bound does not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, since we show that there the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Parameterized bounded-depth Frege is not optimal

A general framework for parameterized proof complexity was introduced by Dantchev, Martin, and Szeider [9]. There the authors concentrate on tree-like Parameterized Resolution-a parameterized version of classical Resolution-and their gap complexity theorem implies lower bounds for that system. The main result of the present paper significantly improves upon this by showing optimal lower bounds for a parameterized version of bounded-depth Frege. More precisely, we prove that the pigeonhole principle requires proofs of size n in parameterized bounded-depth Frege, and, as a special case, in dag-like Parameterized Resolution. This answers an open question posed in [9]. In the opposite direction, we interpret a well-known technique for FPT algorithms as a DPLL procedure for Parameterized Resolution. Its generalization leads to a proof search algorithm for Parameterized Resolution that in particular shows that tree-like Parameterized Resolution allows short refutations of all parameterized contradictions given as bounded-width CNF's

MaxSAT Resolution and Subcube Sums

We study the MaxRes rule in the context of certifying unsatisfiability. We show that it can be exponentially more powerful than tree-like resolution, and when augmented with weakening (the system MaxResW), p-simulates tree-like resolution. In devising a lower bound technique specific to MaxRes (and not merely inheriting lower bounds from Res), we define a new proof system called the SubCubeSums proof system. This system, which p-simulates MaxResW, can be viewed as a special case of the semialgebraic Sherali-Adams proof system. In expressivity, it is the integral restriction of conical juntas studied in the contexts of communication complexity and extension complexity. We show that it is not simulated by Res. Using a proof technique qualitatively different from the lower bounds that MaxResW inherits from Res, we show that Tseitin contradictions on expander graphs are hard to refute in SubCubeSums. We also establish a lower bound technique via lifting: for formulas requiring large degree in SubCubeSums, their XOR-ification requires large size in SubCubeSums

Making proofs without Modus Ponens: An introduction to the combinatorics and complexity of cut elimination

This paper is intended to provide an introduction to cut elimination which is accessible to a broad mathematical audience. Gentzen's cut elimination theorem is not as well known as it deserves to be, and it is tied to a lot of interesting mathematical structure. In particular we try to indicate some dynamical and combinatorial aspects of cut elimination, as well as its connections to complexity theory. We discuss two concrete examples where one can see the structure of short proofs with cuts, one concerning feasible numbers and the other concerning "bounded mean oscillation" from real analysis

Structure and Problem Hardness: Goal Asymmetry and DPLL Proofs in<br> SAT-Based Planning

In Verification and in (optimal) AI Planning, a successful method is to formulate the application as boolean satisfiability (SAT), and solve it with state-of-the-art DPLL-based procedures. There is a lack of understanding of why this works so well. Focussing on the Planning context, we identify a form of problem structure concerned with the symmetrical or asymmetrical nature of the cost of achieving the individual planning goals. We quantify this sort of structure with a simple numeric parameter called AsymRatio, ranging between 0 and 1. We run experiments in 10 benchmark domains from the International Planning Competitions since 2000; we show that AsymRatio is a good indicator of SAT solver performance in 8 of these domains. We then examine carefully crafted synthetic planning domains that allow control of the amount of structure, and that are clean enough for a rigorous analysis of the combinatorial search space. The domains are parameterized by size, and by the amount of structure. The CNFs we examine are unsatisfiable, encoding one planning step less than the length of the optimal plan. We prove upper and lower bounds on the size of the best possible DPLL refutations, under different settings of the amount of structure, as a function of size. We also identify the best possible sets of branching variables (backdoors). With minimum AsymRatio, we prove exponential lower bounds, and identify minimal backdoors of size linear in the number of variables. With maximum AsymRatio, we identify logarithmic DPLL refutations (and backdoors), showing a doubly exponential gap between the two structural extreme cases. The reasons for this behavior -- the proof arguments -- illuminate the prototypical patterns of structure causing the empirical behavior observed in the competition benchmarks

Monotone Proofs of the Pigeon Hole Principle

Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Geneva, Switzerland, July 9-15

Hardness measures and resolution lower bounds

Various "hardness" measures have been studied for resolution, providing theoretical insight into the proof complexity of resolution and its fragments, as well as explanations for the hardness of instances in SAT solving. In this report we aim at a unified view of a number of hardness measures, including different measures of width, space and size of resolution proofs. We also extend these measures to all clause-sets (possibly satisfiable).Comment: 43 pages, preliminary version (yet the application part is only sketched, with proofs missing