332 research outputs found
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
- …