Definable ellipsoid method, sums-of-squares proofs, and the isomorphism problem

The ellipsoid method is an algorithm that solves the (weak) feasibility and linear optimization problems for convex sets by making oracle calls to their (weak) separation problem. We observe that the previously known method for showing that this reduction can be done in fixed-point logic with counting (FPC) for linear and semidefinite programs applies to any family of explicitly bounded convex sets. We use this observation to show that the exact feasibility problem for semidefinite programs is expressible in the infinitary version of FPC. As a corollary we get that, for the graph isomorphism problem, the Lasserre/Sums-of-Squares semidefinite programming hierarchy of relaxations collapses to the Sherali-Adams linear programming hierarchy, up to a small loss in the degree. © 2018 ACM.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Definable Ellipsoid Method, Sums-of-Squares Proofs, and the Isomorphism Problem

The ellipsoid method is an algorithm that solves the (weak) feasibility and linear optimization problems for convex sets by making oracle calls to their (weak) separation problem. We observe that the previously known method for showing that this reduction can be done in fixed-point logic with counting (FPC) for linear and semidefinite programs applies to any family of explicitly bounded convex sets. We use this observation to show that the exact feasibility problem for semidefinite programs is expressible in the infinitary version of FPC. As a corollary we get that, for the isomorphism problem, the Lasserre/Sums-of-Squares semidefinite programming hierarchy of relaxations collapses to the Sherali-Adams linear programming hierarchy, up to a small loss in the degree

Automating Resolution is NP-Hard

We show that the problem of finding a Resolution refutation that is at most polynomially longer than a shortest one is NP-hard. In the parlance of proof complexity, Resolution is not automatizable unless P = NP. Indeed, we show it is NP-hard to distinguish between formulas that have Resolution refutations of polynomial length and those that do not have subexponential length refutations. This also implies that Resolution is not automatizable in subexponential time or quasi-polynomial time unless NP is included in SUBEXP or QP, respectively

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