Results 1  10
of
138
Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane Proofs and Monotone Computations
, 1997
"... We prove an exponential lower bound on the length of cutting plane proofs. The proof uses an extension of a lower bound for monotone circuits to circuits which compute with real numbers and use nondecreasing functions as gates. The latter result is of independent interest, since, in particular, i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 135 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove an exponential lower bound on the length of cutting plane proofs. The proof uses an extension of a lower bound for monotone circuits to circuits which compute with real numbers and use nondecreasing functions as gates. The latter result is of independent interest, since, in particular, it implies an exponential lower bound for some arithmetic circuits.
An Exponential Lower Bound to the Size of Bounded Depth Frege . . .
, 1994
"... We prove lower bounds of the form exp (n ffl d ) ; ffl d ? 0; on the length of proofs of an explicit sequence of tautologies, based on the Pigeonhole Principle, in proof systems using formulas of depth d; for any constant d: This is the largest lower bound for the strongest proof system, for whic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 67 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove lower bounds of the form exp (n ffl d ) ; ffl d ? 0; on the length of proofs of an explicit sequence of tautologies, based on the Pigeonhole Principle, in proof systems using formulas of depth d; for any constant d: This is the largest lower bound for the strongest proof system, for which any superpolynomial lower bounds are known.
Lower bounds on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and propositional proofs
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY
, 1996
"... The socalled weak form of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz says that a system of algebraic equations over a field, Qj(x) = 0, does not have a solution in the algebraic closure if and only if 1 is in the ideal generated by the polynomials (?,(*) • We shall prove a lower bound on the degrees of polynomials ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The socalled weak form of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz says that a system of algebraic equations over a field, Qj(x) = 0, does not have a solution in the algebraic closure if and only if 1 is in the ideal generated by the polynomials (?,(*) • We shall prove a lower bound on the degrees of polynomials P,(x) such that £, P,(x)Qt(x) = 1. This result has the following application. The modular counting principle states that no finite set whose cardinality is not divisible by q can be partitioned into ^element classes. For each fixed cardinality N, this principle can be expressed as a propositional formula Count^fo,...) with underlying variables xe, where e ranges over <7element subsets of N. Ajtai [4] proved recently that, whenever p,q are two different primes, the propositional formulas Count $ n+I do not have polynomial size, constantdepth Frege proofs from substitution instances of Count/?, where m^O (modp). We give a new proof of this theorem based on the lower bound for Hilbert's Nullstellensatz. Furthermore our technique enables us to extend the independence results for counting principles to composite numbers p and q. This improved lower bound together with new upper bounds yield an exact characterization of when Count, can be proved efficiently from Countp, for all values of p and q.
Resolution Lower Bounds for the Weak Pigeonhole Principle
, 2001
"... We prove that any Resolution proof for the weak pigeon hole principle, with n holes and any number of pigeons, is of ), (for some global constant ffl ? 0). One corollary is that a certain propositional formulation of the statement NP 6ae P=poly does not have short Resolution proofs. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove that any Resolution proof for the weak pigeon hole principle, with n holes and any number of pigeons, is of ), (for some global constant ffl ? 0). One corollary is that a certain propositional formulation of the statement NP 6ae P=poly does not have short Resolution proofs.
A New Proof of the Weak Pigeonhole Principle
, 2000
"... The exact complexity of the weak pigeonhole principle is an old and fundamental problem in proof complexity. Using a diagonalization argument, Paris, Wilkie and Woods [16] showed how to prove the weak pigeonhole principle with boundeddepth, quasipolynomialsize proofs. Their argument was further re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The exact complexity of the weak pigeonhole principle is an old and fundamental problem in proof complexity. Using a diagonalization argument, Paris, Wilkie and Woods [16] showed how to prove the weak pigeonhole principle with boundeddepth, quasipolynomialsize proofs. Their argument was further refined by Kraj'icek [9]. In this paper, we present a new proof: we show that the the weak pigeonhole principle has quasipolynomialsize LK proofs where every formula consists of a single AND/OR of polylog fanin. Our proof is conceptually simpler than previous arguments, and is optimal with respect to depth. 1 Introduction The pigeonhole principle is a fundamental axiom of mathematics, stating that there is no onetoone mapping from m pigeons to n holes when m ? n. It expresses Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 136995815, U.S.A. alexis@clarkson.edu. Research supported by NSF grant CCR9877150. y Department of Computer Science, University o...
A Switching Lemma for Small Restrictions and Lower Bounds for kDNF Resolution (Extended Abstract)
 SIAM J. Comput
, 2002
"... We prove a new switching lemma that works for restrictions that set only a small fraction of the variables and is applicable to DNFs with small conjunctions. We use this to prove lower bounds for the Res(k) propositional proof system, an extension of resolution which works with kDNFs instead of cla ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove a new switching lemma that works for restrictions that set only a small fraction of the variables and is applicable to DNFs with small conjunctions. We use this to prove lower bounds for the Res(k) propositional proof system, an extension of resolution which works with kDNFs instead of clauses. We also obtain an exponential separation between depth d circuits of k + 1.
The Propositional Formula Checker HeerHugo
 JOURNAL OF AUTOMATED REASONING
, 1999
"... HeerHugo is a propositional formula checker that determines whether a given formula is satisfiable or not. Its main ingredient is the branch/merge rule, that is inspired by an algorithm proposed by Stallmarck, which is protected by a software patent. The algorithm can be interpreted as a breadth f ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
HeerHugo is a propositional formula checker that determines whether a given formula is satisfiable or not. Its main ingredient is the branch/merge rule, that is inspired by an algorithm proposed by Stallmarck, which is protected by a software patent. The algorithm can be interpreted as a breadth first search algorithm. HeerHugo differs substantially from Stallmarck's algorithm, as it operates on formulas in conjunctive normal form and it is enhanced with many logical rules including unit resolution, 2satisfiability tests and additional systematic reasoning techniques. In this paper, the main elements of the algorithm are discussed, and its remarkable effectiveness is illustrated with some examples and computational results.
Resolution lower bounds for perfect matching principles
 Journal of Computer and System Sciences
"... For an arbitrary hypergraph H, letPM(H) be the propositional formula asserting that H contains a perfect matching. We show that every resolution refutation of PM(H) musthavesize exp Ω δ(H) λ(H)r(H)(log n(H))(r(H)+logn(H)) where n(H) is the number of vertices, δ(H) is the minimal degree of a vertex, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 39 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
For an arbitrary hypergraph H, letPM(H) be the propositional formula asserting that H contains a perfect matching. We show that every resolution refutation of PM(H) musthavesize exp Ω δ(H) λ(H)r(H)(log n(H))(r(H)+logn(H)) where n(H) is the number of vertices, δ(H) is the minimal degree of a vertex, r(H) is the maximal size of an edge, and λ(H) is the maximal number of edges incident to two different vertices. For ordinary graphs G our general bound considerably simplifies to exp Ω (implying an exp(Ω(δ(G) 1/3)) lower bound that depends on the minimal degree only). As a direct corollary, every resolution proof of the functional ( ( onto)) version of must have size exp Ω (which the pigeonhole principle onto − FPHP m n n (log m) 2 δ(G) (log n(G)) 2 becomes exp ( Ω(n 1/3) ) when the number of pigeons m is unbounded). This in turn immediately implies an exp(Ω(t/n 3)) lower bound on the size of resolution proofs of the principle asserting that the circuit size of the Boolean function fn in n variables is greater than t. Inparticular,Resolution does not possess efficient proofs of NP ⊆ P/poly. These results relativize, in a natural way, to a more general principle M(UH) asserting that H contains a matching covering all vertices in U ⊆ V (H).
Readonce branching programs, rectangular proofs of the pigeonhole principle and the transversal calculus
 in: Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
, 1997
"... We investigate readonce branching programs for the following search problem: given a Boolean m n matrix with m>n, nd either an allzero row, or two 1's in some column. Our primary motivation is that this models regular resolution proofs of the pigeonhole principle PHP m n, and that for m>n 2 no low ..."
Abstract

Cited by 34 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate readonce branching programs for the following search problem: given a Boolean m n matrix with m>n, nd either an allzero row, or two 1's in some column. Our primary motivation is that this models regular resolution proofs of the pigeonhole principle PHP m n, and that for m>n 2 no lower bounds are known for the length of such proofs. We prove exponential lower bounds (for arbitrarily large m!) if we further restrict this model by requiring the branching program either
Proof Complexity In Algebraic Systems And Bounded Depth Frege Systems With Modular Counting
"... We prove a lower bound of the form N on the degree of polynomials in a Nullstellensatz refutation of the Count q polynomials over Zm , where q is a prime not dividing m. In addition, we give an explicit construction of a degree N design for the Count q principle over Zm . As a corollary, us ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove a lower bound of the form N on the degree of polynomials in a Nullstellensatz refutation of the Count q polynomials over Zm , where q is a prime not dividing m. In addition, we give an explicit construction of a degree N design for the Count q principle over Zm . As a corollary, using Beame et al. (1994) we obtain a lower bound of the form 2 for the number of formulas in a constantdepth Frege proof of the modular counting principle Count q from instances of the counting principle Count m . We discuss