Small Depth Proof Systems

  • Andreas Krebs
  • Nutan Limaye
  • Meena Mahajan
  • Karteek Sreenivasaiah
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8087)

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Hirsch, E.A.: Optimal acceptors and optimal proof systems. In: Kratochvíl, J., Li, A., Fiala, J., Kolman, P. (eds.) TAMC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6108, pp. 28–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Cook, S.A., Krajíček, J.: Consequences of the provability of NP ⊆ P/poly. Journal of Symbolic Logic 72(4), 1353–1371 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pudlák, P.: Quantum deduction rules. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 157(1), 16–29 (2009), See also ECCC TR07-032Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.A.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic 44(1), 36–50 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Segerlind, N.: The complexity of propositional proofs. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13(4), 417–481 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Furst, M.L., Saxe, J.B., Sipser, M.: Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Mathematical Systems Theory 17(1), 13–27 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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 [18]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cryan, M., Miltersen, P.B.: On pseudorandom generators in NC0. In: Sgall, J., Pultr, A., Kolman, P. (eds.) MFCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2136, pp. 272–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reingold, O.: Undirected st-connectivity in log-space. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC, pp. 376–385. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Veblen, O.: An application of modular equations in analysis situs. Annals of Mathematics 14(1/4), 86–94 (1912)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Justesen, J.: Class of constructive asymptotically good algebraic codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 18(5), 652–656 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bedard, F., Lemieux, F., McKenzie, P.: Extensions to Barrington’s M-program model. Theoretical Computer Science 107, 31–61 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krebs, A., Limaye, N.: Dlogtime-proof systems. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) 19, 186 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beyersdorff, O., Datta, S., Mahajan, M., Scharfenberger-Fabian, G., Sreenivasaiah, K., Thomas, M., Vollmer, H.: Verifying proofs in constant depth. In: Murlak, F., Sankowski, P. (eds.) MFCS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6907, pp. 84–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Krebs
    • 1
  • Nutan Limaye
    • 2
  • Meena Mahajan
    • 3
  • Karteek Sreenivasaiah
    • 3
  1. 1.University of TübingenGermany
  2. 2.Indian Institute of TechnologyBombayIndia
  3. 3.The Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations