Advertisement

Parity Games and Propositional Proofs

  • Arnold Beckmann
  • Pavel Pudlák
  • Neil Thapen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8087)

Abstract

A propositional proof system is weakly automatizable if there is a polynomial time algorithm which separates satisfiable formulas from formulas which have a short refutation in the system, with respect to a given length bound. We show that if the resolution proof system is weakly automatizable, then parity games can be decided in polynomial time. We also define a combinatorial game and prove that resolution is weakly automatizable if and only if one can separate, by a set decidable in polynomial time, the games in which the first player has a positional winning strategy from the games in which the second player has a positional winning strategy.

Keywords

Polynomial Time Algorithm Proof System Outgoing Edge Winning Strategy Propositional Formula 
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., Razborov, A.A.: Resolution is not automatizable unless W[P] is tractable. SIAM J. Comput. 38(4), 1347–1363 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atserias, A., Bonet, M.L.: On the automatizability of resolution and related propositional proof systems. Inform. and Comput. 189(2), 182–201 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atserias, A., Maneva, E.: Mean-payoff games and propositional proofs. Inform. and Comput. 209(4), 664–691 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buresh-Oppenheim, J., Morioka, T.: Relativized NP search problems and propositional proof systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 54–67. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buss, S.R.: Bounded arithmetic, Studies in Proof Theory. Lecture Notes, vol. 3. Bibliopolis, Naples (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Condon, A.: On algorithms for simple stochastic games. In: Advances in Computational Complexity Theory (New Brunswick, NJ, 1990). DIMACS Ser. Discrete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci, vol. 13, pp. 51–71. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrenfeucht, A., Mycielski, J.: Positional strategies for mean payoff games. Internat. J. Game Theory 8(2), 109–113 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.A.: Automata, tableaux, and temporal logics. In: Parikh, R. (ed.) Logic of Programs 1985. LNCS, vol. 193, pp. 79–88. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedmann, O.: An exponential lower bound for the latest deterministic strategy iteration algorithms. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 7(3), 3:19, 42 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedmann, O.: Recursive algorithm for parity games requires exponential time. RAIRO Theor. Inform. Appl. 45(4), 449–457 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grädel, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T. (eds.): Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games. LNCS, vol. 2500. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, L., Pitassi, T.: Automatizability and simple stochastic games. In: Aceto, L., Henzinger, M., Sgall, J. (eds.) ICALP 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6755, pp. 605–617. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juba, B.: On the Hardness of Simple Stochastic Games. Master’s thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krajíček, J.: Lower bounds to the size of constant-depth Frege proofs. J. Symbolic Logic 59, 73–86 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krajíček, J.: Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic. J. Symbolic Logic 62, 457–486 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krajíček, J.: On the weak pigeonhole principle. Fund. Math. 170(1-2), 123–140 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paris, J., Wilkie, A.: Counting problems in bounded arithmetic. In: Di Prisco, C.A. (ed.) Methods in Mathematical Logic. LNCS, vol. 1130, pp. 317–340. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pudlák, P.: On reducibility and symmetry of disjoint NP pairs. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 295(1-3), 323–339 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puri, A.: Theory of hybrid systems and discrete event structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Razborov, A.A.: On provably disjoint NP-pairs. Tech. Rep. RS-94-36, Basic Research in Computer Science Center, Aarhus, Denmark (November 1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stirling, C.: Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. Texts in Computer Science. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilmers, G.: Bounded existential induction. J. Symbolic Logic 50(1), 72–90 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zwick, U., Paterson, M.: The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 158(1-2), 343–359 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold Beckmann
    • 1
  • Pavel Pudlák
    • 2
  • Neil Thapen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, College of ScienceSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPraha 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations