Small Depth Proof Systems
A proof system for a language L is a function f such that Range(f) is exactly L. In this paper, we look at proof systems from a circuit complexity point of view and study proof systems that are computationally very restricted. The restriction we study is: they can be computed by bounded fanin circuits of constant depth (NC0), or of O(loglogn) depth but with O(1) alternations (poly log AC0). Each output bit depends on very few input bits; thus such proof systems correspond to a kind of local error-correction on a theorem-proof pair.
We identify exactly how much power we need for proof systems to capture all regular languages. We show that all regular language have poly log AC0 proof systems, and from a previous result (Beyersdorff et al, MFCS 2011, where NC0 proof systems were first introduced), this is tight. Our technique also shows that Maj has poly log AC0 proof system.
We explore the question of whether Taut has NC0 proof systems. Addressing this question about 2TAUT, and since 2TAUT is closely related to reachability in graphs, we ask the same question about Reachability. We show that both Undirected Reachability and Directed UnReachability have NC0 proof systems, but Directed Reachability is still open.
In the context of how much power is needed for proof systems for languages in NP, we observe that proof systems for a good fraction of languages in NP do not need the full power of AC0; they have SAC0 or coSAC0 proof systems.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 151–158 (1971)Google Scholar
- 3.Hirsch, E.A., Itsykson, D.: On optimal heuristic randomized semidecision procedures, with application to proof complexity. In: Proceedings of 27th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS, pp. 453–464 (2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Pudlák, P.: Quantum deduction rules. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 157(1), 16–29 (2009), See also ECCC TR07-032Google Scholar
- 7.Beame, P., Pitassi, T.: Propositional proof complexity: Past, present, and future. In: Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 42–70. World Scientific (2001)Google Scholar
- 10.Håstad, J.: Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC, pp. 6–20 (1986)Google Scholar
- 11.Beyersdorff, O., Datta, S., Krebs, A., Mahajan, M., Scharfenberger-Fabian, G., Sreenivasaiah, K., Thomas, M., Vollmer, H.: Verifying proofs in constant depth. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (to appear, 2013) See also ECCC TR012-79. A preliminary version appeared in Google Scholar
- 17.Krebs, A., Limaye, N.: Dlogtime-proof systems. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 19, 186 (2012)Google Scholar