Results 1  10
of
59
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 158 (6 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.
Lower Bounds for Cutting Planes Proofs with Small Coefficients
, 1995
"... We consider smallweight Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs; that is, Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs with coefficients up to P oly(n). We use the well known lower bounds for monotone complexity to prove an exponential lower bound for the length of CP proofs, for a family of tautologies based on the cl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 80 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider smallweight Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs; that is, Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs with coefficients up to P oly(n). We use the well known lower bounds for monotone complexity to prove an exponential lower bound for the length of CP proofs, for a family of tautologies based on the clique function. Because Resolution is a special case of smallweight CP , our method also gives a new and simpler exponential lower bound for Resolution. We also prove the following two theorems : (1) Treelike CP proofs cannot polynomially simulate nontreelike CP proofs. (2) Treelike CP proofs and BoundeddepthFrege proofs cannot polynomially simulate each other. Our proofs also work for some generalizations of the CP proof system. In particular, they work for CP with a deduction rule, and also for proof systems that allow any formula with small communication complexity, and any set of sound rules of inference. 1 Introduction One of the most fundamental questions in pro...
On the Weak Pigeonhole Principle
, 2001
"... We investigate the proof complexity, in (extensions of) resolution and in bounded arithmetic, of the weak pigeonhole principle and of Ramsey theorem. In particular, we link the proof complexity of these two principles. Further we give lower bounds to the width of resolution proofs and to the size of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 77 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate the proof complexity, in (extensions of) resolution and in bounded arithmetic, of the weak pigeonhole principle and of Ramsey theorem. In particular, we link the proof complexity of these two principles. Further we give lower bounds to the width of resolution proofs and to the size of (extensions of) treelike resolution proofs of Ramsey theorem. We establish a connection between provability of WPHP in fragments of bounded arithmetic and cryptographic assumptions (the existence of oneway functions). In particular, we show that functions violating WPHP 2n n are oneway and, on the other hand, that oneway permutations give rise to functions violating PHP n+1 n , and that strongly collisionfree families of hash functions give rise to functions violating WPHP 2n n (all in suitable models of bounded arithmetic). Further we formulate few problems and conjectures; in particular, on the structured PHP (introduced here) and on the unrelativised WPHP. The symbol WPHP m n...
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 69 (9 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 polyno ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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.
On Interpolation and Automatization for Frege Systems
, 2000
"... The interpolation method has been one of the main tools for proving lower bounds for propositional proof systems. Loosely speaking, if one can prove that a particular proof system has the feasible interpolation property, then a generic reduction can (usually) be applied to prove lower bounds for the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 50 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The interpolation method has been one of the main tools for proving lower bounds for propositional proof systems. Loosely speaking, if one can prove that a particular proof system has the feasible interpolation property, then a generic reduction can (usually) be applied to prove lower bounds for the proof system, sometimes assuming a (usually modest) complexitytheoretic assumption. In this paper, we show that this method cannot be used to obtain lower bounds for Frege systems, or even for TC 0 Frege systems. More specifically, we show that unless factoring (of Blum integers) is feasible, neither Frege nor TC 0 Frege has the feasible interpolation property. In order to carry out our argument, we show how to carry out proofs of many elementary axioms/theorems of arithmetic in polynomial size TC 0 Frege. As a corollary, we obtain that TC 0 Frege as well as any proof system that polynomially simulates it, is not automatizable (under the assumption that factoring of Blum integ...
Pseudorandom Generators Hard for kDNF Resolution and Polynomial Calculus Resolution
, 2003
"... A pseudorandom generator G n : f0; 1g is hard for a propositional proof system P if (roughly speaking) P can not ef ciently prove the statement G n (x 1 ; : : : ; x n ) 6= b for any string b 2 . We present a function (m 2 ) generator which is hard for Res( log n); here Res(k) is the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A pseudorandom generator G n : f0; 1g is hard for a propositional proof system P if (roughly speaking) P can not ef ciently prove the statement G n (x 1 ; : : : ; x n ) 6= b for any string b 2 . We present a function (m 2 ) generator which is hard for Res( log n); here Res(k) is the propositional proof system that extends Resolution by allowing kDNFs instead of clauses.
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 39 (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...
On the Automatizability of Resolution and Related Propositional Proof Systems
, 2002
"... We analyse the possibility that a system that simulates Resolution is automatizable. We call this notion "weak automatizability". We prove ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We analyse the possibility that a system that simulates Resolution is automatizable. We call this notion "weak automatizability". We prove
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 32 (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