Advertisement

Towards an Understanding of Polynomial Calculus: New Separations and Lower Bounds

(Extended Abstract)
  • Yuval Filmus
  • Massimo Lauria
  • Mladen Mikša
  • Jakob Nordström
  • Marc Vinyals
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7965)

Abstract

During the last decade, an active line of research in proof complexity has been into the space complexity of proofs and how space is related to other measures. By now these aspects of resolution are fairly well understood, but many open problems remain for the related but stronger polynomial calculus (PC/PCR) proof system. For instance, the space complexity of many standard “benchmark formulas” is still open, as well as the relation of space to size and degree in PC/PCR.

We prove that if a formula requires large resolution width, then making XOR substitution yields a formula requiring large PCR space, providing some circumstantial evidence that degree might be a lower bound for space. More importantly, this immediately yields formulas that are very hard for space but very easy for size, exhibiting a size-space separation similar to what is known for resolution. Using related ideas, we show that if a graph has good expansion and in addition its edge set can be partitioned into short cycles, then the Tseitin formula over this graph requires large PCR space. In particular, Tseitin formulas over random 4-regular graphs almost surely require space at least \(\Omega{\sqrt{n}}\).

Our proofs use techniques recently introduced in [Bonacina-Galesi ’13]. Our final contribution, however, is to show that these techniques provably cannot yield non-constant space lower bounds for the functional pigeonhole principle, delineating the limitations of this framework and suggesting that we are still far from characterizing PC/PCR space.

Keywords

Proof System Conjunctive Normal Form Partial Assignment Conjunctive Normal Form Formula Partial Partition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A.A., Wigderson, A.: Space complexity in propositional calculus. SIAM J. Comput. 31(4), 1184–1211 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds for polynomial calculus: Non-binomial case. Proc. Inst. Math. 242, 18–35 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atserias, A., Dalmau, V.: A combinatorial characterization of resolution width. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74(3), 323–334 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayardo Jr., R.J., Schrag, R.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: Proc. 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1997), pp. 203–208 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beame, P., Beck, C., Impagliazzo, R.: Time-space tradeoffs in resolution: Superpolynomial lower bounds for superlinear space. In: Proc. 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2012), pp. 213–232 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, C., Nordstrm̈, J., Tang, B.: Some trade-off results for polynomial calculus. In: Proc. 45th Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ben-Sasson, E.: Size space tradeoffs for resolution. SIAM J. Comput. 38(6), 2511–2525 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Galesi, N.: Space complexity of random formulae in resolution. Random Struct. Algorithms 23(1), 92–109 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Short proofs may be spacious: An optimal separation of space and length in resolution. In: Proc. 49th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2008), pp. 709–718 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Understanding space in proof complexity: Separations and trade-offs via substitutions. In: Proc. 2nd Symposium on Innovations in Computer Science (ICS 2011), pp. 401–416 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple. J. ACM 48(2), 149–169 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blake, A.: Canonical Expressions in Boolean Algebra. PhD thesis, University of Chicago (1937)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bonacina, I., Galesi, N.: Pseudo-partitions, transversality and locality: A combinatorial characterization for the space measure in algebraic proof systems. In: Proc. 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2013), pp. 455–472 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chvátal, V., Szemerédi, E.: Many hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 35(4), 759–768 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clegg, M., Edmonds, J., Impagliazzo, R.: Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability. In: Proc. 28th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1996), pp. 174–183 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symb. Log. 44(1), 36–50 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esteban, J.L., Torán, J.: Space bounds for resolution. Inf. Comput. 171(1), 84–97 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Filmus, Y., Lauria, M., Nordström, J., Thapen, N., Ron-Zewi, N.: Space complexity in polynomial calculus. In: Proc. 27th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2012), pp. 334–344 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39(2-3), 297–308 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huynh, T., Nordström, J.: On the virtue of succinct proofs: Amplifying communication complexity hardness to time-space trade-offs in proof complexity. In: Proc. 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2012), pp. 233–248 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Impagliazzo, R., Pudlák, P., Sgall, J.: Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus and the Gröbner basis algorithm. Comput. Complex. 8(2), 127–144 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, J.H., Wormald, N.C.: Random matchings which induce Hamilton cycles, and hamiltonian decompositions of random regular graphs. J. Comb. Theory B 81, 20–44 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP—a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proc. International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD 1996), pp. 220–227 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus. Comput. Complex. 7(4), 291–324 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 34(1), 209–219 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuval Filmus
    • 1
  • Massimo Lauria
    • 2
  • Mladen Mikša
    • 2
  • Jakob Nordström
    • 2
  • Marc Vinyals
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations