Results 11  20
of
93
Monotone Circuits for Matching Require Linear Depth
"... We prove that monotone circuits computing the perfect matching function on nvertex graphs require\Omega\Gamma n) depth. This implies an exponential gap between the depth of monotone and nonmonotone circuits. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 77 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove that monotone circuits computing the perfect matching function on nvertex graphs require\Omega\Gamma n) depth. This implies an exponential gap between the depth of monotone and nonmonotone 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 77 (19 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...
Models of Computation  Exploring the Power of Computing
"... Theoretical computer science treats any computational subject for which a good model can be created. Research on formal models of computation was initiated in the 1930s and 1940s by Turing, Post, Kleene, Church, and others. In the 1950s and 1960s programming languages, language translators, and oper ..."
Abstract

Cited by 57 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Theoretical computer science treats any computational subject for which a good model can be created. Research on formal models of computation was initiated in the 1930s and 1940s by Turing, Post, Kleene, Church, and others. In the 1950s and 1960s programming languages, language translators, and operating systems were under development and therefore became both the subject and basis for a great deal of theoretical work. The power of computers of this period was limited by slow processors and small amounts of memory, and thus theories (models, algorithms, and analysis) were developed to explore the efficient use of computers as well as the inherent complexity of problems. The former subject is known today as algorithms and data structures, the latter computational complexity. The focus of theoretical computer scientists in the 1960s on languages is reflected in the first textbook on the subject, Formal Languages and Their Relation to Automata by John Hopcroft and Jeffrey Ullman. This influential book led to the creation of many languagecentered theoretical computer science courses; many introductory theory courses today continue to reflect the content of this book and the interests of theoreticians of the 1960s and early 1970s. Although
Unprovability of Lower Bounds on the Circuit Size in Certain Fragments of Bounded Arithmetic
 in Izvestiya of the Russian Academy of Science, mathematics
, 1995
"... To appear in Izvestiya of the RAN We show that if strong pseudorandom generators exist then the statement “α encodes a circuit of size n (log ∗ n) for SATISFIABILITY ” is not refutable in S2 2 (α). For refutation in S1 2 (α), this is proven under the weaker assumption of the existence of generators ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
To appear in Izvestiya of the RAN We show that if strong pseudorandom generators exist then the statement “α encodes a circuit of size n (log ∗ n) for SATISFIABILITY ” is not refutable in S2 2 (α). For refutation in S1 2 (α), this is proven under the weaker assumption of the existence of generators secure against the attack by small depth circuits, and for another system which is strong enough to prove exponential lower bounds for constantdepth circuits, this is shown without using any unproven hardness assumptions. These results can be also viewed as direct corollaries of interpolationlike theorems for certain “split versions ” of classical systems of Bounded Arithmetic introduced in this paper.
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 51 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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...
The History and Status of the P versus NP Question
, 1992
"... this article, I have attempted to organize and describe this literature, including an occasional opinion about the most fruitful directions, but no technical details. In the first half of this century, work on the power of formal systems led to the formalization of the notion of algorithm and the re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 50 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this article, I have attempted to organize and describe this literature, including an occasional opinion about the most fruitful directions, but no technical details. In the first half of this century, work on the power of formal systems led to the formalization of the notion of algorithm and the realization that certain problems are algorithmically unsolvable. At around this time, forerunners of the programmable computing machine were beginning to appear. As mathematicians contemplated the practical capabilities and limitations of such devices, computational complexity theory emerged from the theory of algorithmic unsolvability. Early on, a particular type of computational task became evident, where one is seeking an object which lies
Bounded Arithmetic and Lower Bounds in Boolean Complexity
 Feasible Mathematics II
, 1993
"... We study the question of provability of lower bounds on the complexity of explicitly given Boolean functions in weak fragments of Peano Arithmetic. To that end, we analyze what is the right fragment capturing the kind of techniques existing in Boolean complexity at present. We give both formal and i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the question of provability of lower bounds on the complexity of explicitly given Boolean functions in weak fragments of Peano Arithmetic. To that end, we analyze what is the right fragment capturing the kind of techniques existing in Boolean complexity at present. We give both formal and informal arguments supporting the claim that a conceivable answer is V 1 (which, in view of RSUV isomorphism, is equivalent to S 2 ), although some major results about the complexity of Boolean functions can be proved in (presumably) weaker subsystems like U 1 . As a byproduct of this analysis, we give a more constructive version of the proof of Hastad Switching Lemma which probably is interesting in its own right.
Superpolynomial lower bounds for monotone span programs
, 1996
"... In this paper we obtain the first superpolynomial lower bounds for monotone span programs computing explicit functions. The best previous lower bound was Ω(n 5/2) by Beimel, Gál, Paterson [BGP]; our proof exploits a general combinatorial lower bound criterion from that paper. Our lower bounds are ba ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we obtain the first superpolynomial lower bounds for monotone span programs computing explicit functions. The best previous lower bound was Ω(n 5/2) by Beimel, Gál, Paterson [BGP]; our proof exploits a general combinatorial lower bound criterion from that paper. Our lower bounds are based on an analysis of Paleytype bipartite graphs via Weil’s character sum estimates. We prove an n Ω(log n / log log n) lower bound for the size of monotone span programs for the clique problem. Our results give the first superpolynomial lower bounds for linear secret sharing schemes. We demonstrate the surprising power of monotone span programs by exhibiting a function computable in this model in linear size while requiring superpolynomial size monotone circuits and exponential size monotone formulae. We also show that the perfect matching function can be computed by polynomial size (nonmonotone) span programs over arbitrary fields.
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 37 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We analyse the possibility that a system that simulates Resolution is automatizable. We call this notion "weak automatizability". We prove
Simulating Threshold Circuits by Majority Circuits
 SIAM Journal on Computing
, 1994
"... We prove that a single threshold gate with arbitrary weights can be simulated by an explicit polynomialsize depth 2 majority circuit. In general we show that a depth d threshold circuit can be simulated uniformly by a majority circuit of depth d + 1. Goldmann, Hastad, and Razborov showed in [10 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove that a single threshold gate with arbitrary weights can be simulated by an explicit polynomialsize depth 2 majority circuit. In general we show that a depth d threshold circuit can be simulated uniformly by a majority circuit of depth d + 1. Goldmann, Hastad, and Razborov showed in [10] that a nonuniform simulation exists. Our construction answers two open questions posed in [10]: we give an explicit construction whereas [10] uses a randomized existence argument, and we show that such a simulation is possible even if the depth d grows with the number of variables n (the simulation in [10] gives polynomialsize circuits only when d is constant). 1 A preliminary version of this paper appeared in Proc. 25th ACM STOC (1993), pp. 551560. 2 Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, Email: migo@theory.lcs.mit.edu. This author 's work was done at Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and while visiting the University of Bonn 3 Department of Com...