[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3618260.3649652acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Lower Bounds for Regular Resolution over Parities

Published: 11 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The proof system resolution over parities (Res(⊕)) operates with disjunctions of linear equations (linear clauses) over GF(2); it extends the resolution proof system by incorporating linear algebra over GF(2). Over the years, several exponential lower bounds on the size of tree-like refutations have been established. However, proving a superpolynomial lower bound on the size of dag-like Res(⊕) refutations remains a highly challenging open question. We prove an exponential lower bound for regular Res(⊕). Regular Res(⊕) is a subsystem of dag-like Res(⊕) that naturally extends regular resolution. This is the first known superpolynomial lower bound for a fragment of dag-like Res(⊕) which is exponentially stronger than tree-like Res(⊕). In the regular regime, resolving linear clauses C1 and C2 on a linear form f is permitted only if, for both i∈ {1,2}, the linear form f does not lie within the linear span of all linear forms that were used in resolution rules during the derivation of Ci. Namely, we show that the size of any regular Res(⊕) refutation of the binary pigeonhole principle BPHPnn+1 is at least 2Ω(∛n/logn). A corollary of our result is an exponential lower bound on the size of a strongly read-once linear branching program solving a search problem. This resolves an open question raised by Gryaznov, Pudlak, and Talebanfard (CCC 2022). As a byproduct of our technique, we prove that the size of any tree-like Res(⊕) refutation of the weak binary pigeonhole principle BPHPnm is at least 2Ω(n) using Prover-Delayer games. We also give a direct proof of a width lower bound: we show that any dag-like Res(⊕) refutation of BPHPnm contains a linear clause C with Ω(n) linearly independent equations.

References

[1]
M. Ajtai. 1983. ∑_1^1-Formulae on finite structures. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 24, 1 (1983), 1–48. issn:0168-0072
[2]
Miklós Ajtai. 1994. The Complexity of the Pigeonhole Principle. Combinatorica 14, 4 (1994), 417–433.
[3]
Michael Alekhnovich, Eli Ben-Sasson, Alexander A. Razborov, and Avi Wigderson. 2004. Pseudorandom Generators in Propositional Proof Complexity. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 1 (2004), 67–88.
[4]
Michael Alekhnovich, Edward A. Hirsch, and Dmitry Itsykson. 2005. Exponential Lower Bounds for the Running Time of DPLL Algorithms on Satisfiable Formulas. J. Autom. Reason. 35, 1-3 (2005), 51–72.
[5]
Michael Alekhnovich and Alexander A. Razborov. 2001. Lower Bounds for Polynomial Calculus: Non-Binomial Case. In 42nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2001, 14-17 October 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. IEEE Computer Society, 190–199.
[6]
Yaroslav Alekseev. 2021. A Lower Bound for Polynomial Calculus with Extension Rule. In 36th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2021) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 200), Valentine Kabanets (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 21:1–21:18. isbn:978-3-95977-193-1 issn:1868-8969
[7]
Paul Beame, Henry A. Kautz, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2004. Towards Understanding and Harnessing the Potential of Clause Learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 22 (2004), 319–351.
[8]
Paul Beame and Sajin Koroth. 2023. On Disperser/Lifting Properties of the Index and Inner-Product Functions. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 251), Yael Tauman Kalai (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 14:1–14:17. isbn:978-3-95977-263-1 issn:1868-8969
[9]
Paul Beame, Toniann Pitassi, and Nathan Segerlind. 2007. Lower Bounds for Lov[a-acute]sz–Schrijver Systems and Beyond Follow from Multiparty Communication Complexity. SIAM J. Comput. 37, 3 (2007), 845–869.
[10]
Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Nikhil S. Mande, Swagato Sanyal, and Suhail Sherif. 2023. Lifting to Parity Decision Trees via Stifling. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2023, January 10-13, 2023, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (LIPIcs, Vol. 251), Yael Tauman Kalai (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 33:1–33:20.
[11]
Eshan Chattopadhyay and Jyun-Jie Liao. 2023. Hardness Against Linear Branching Programs and More. In 38th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC 2023, July 17-20, 2023, Warwick, UK (LIPIcs, Vol. 264), Amnon Ta-Shma (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 9:1–9:27.
[12]
Stephen A. Cook and Robert A. Reckhow. 1979. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 44, 1 (March 1979), 36–50.
[13]
M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. 1962. A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5 (1962), 394–397.
[14]
M. Davis and H. Putnam. 1960. A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7 (1960), 201–215.
[15]
Merrick Furst, James B. Saxe, and Michael Sipser. 1981. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1981) (1981), 260 – 270.
[16]
Michal Garlík and Leszek Aleksander Kolodziejczyk. 2018. Some Subsystems of Constant-Depth Frege with Parity. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 19, 4 (2018), 29:1–29:34.
[17]
Mika Göös and Siddhartha Jain. 2022. Communication Complexity of Collision. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, APPROX/RANDOM 2022, September 19-21, 2022, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA (Virtual Conference) (LIPIcs, Vol. 245), Amit Chakrabarti and Chaitanya Swamy (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 19:1–19:9.
[18]
Mika Göös and Toniann Pitassi. 2018. Communication Lower Bounds via Critical Block Sensitivity. SIAM J. Comput. 47, 5 (2018), 1778–1806.
[19]
Svyatoslav Gryaznov. 2019. Notes on Resolution over Linear Equations. In Computer Science - Theory and Applications - 14th International Computer Science Symposium in Russia, CSR 2019, Novosibirsk, Russia, July 1-5, 2019, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11532), René van Bevern and Gregory Kucherov (Eds.). Springer, 168–179.
[20]
Svyatoslav Gryaznov, Pavel Pudlák, and Navid Talebanfard. 2022. Linear Branching Programs and Directional Affine Extractors. In 37th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC 2022, July 20-23, 2022, Philadelphia, PA, USA (LIPIcs, Vol. 234), Shachar Lovett (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 4:1–4:16.
[21]
Trinh Huynh and Jakob Nordström. 2012. On the virtue of succinct proofs: amplifying communication complexity hardness to time-space trade-offs in proof complexity. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference, STOC 2012, New York, NY, USA, May 19 - 22, 2012, Howard J. Karloff and Toniann Pitassi (Eds.). ACM, 233–248.
[22]
Dmitry Itsykson and Alexander Knop. 2017. Hard Satisfiable Formulas for Splittings by Linear Combinations. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2017 - 20th International Conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, August 28 - September 1, 2017, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10491), Serge Gaspers and Toby Walsh (Eds.). Springer, 53–61.
[23]
Dmitry Itsykson and Artur Riazanov. 2021. Proof Complexity of Natural Formulas via Communication Arguments. In 36th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC 2021, July 20-23, 2021, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Virtual Conference) (LIPIcs, Vol. 200), Valentine Kabanets (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 3:1–3:34.
[24]
Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov. 2011. Lower Bounds for Myopic DPLL Algorithms with a Cut Heuristic. In Algorithms and Computation - 22nd International Symposium, ISAAC 2011, Yokohama, Japan, December 5-8, 2011. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7074), Takao Asano, Shin-Ichi Nakano, Yoshio Okamoto, and Osamu Watanabe (Eds.). Springer, 464–473.
[25]
Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov. 2014. Lower Bounds for Splittings by Linear Combinations. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2014 - 39th International Symposium, MFCS 2014, Budapest, Hungary, August 25-29, 2014. Proceedings, Part II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8635), Erzsébet Csuhaj-Varjú, Martin Dietzfelbinger, and Zoltán Ésik (Eds.). Springer, 372–383.
[26]
Dmitry Itsykson and Dmitry Sokolov. 2020. Resolution over linear equations modulo two. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 171, 1 (2020).
[27]
Erfan Khaniki. 2022. On Proof Complexity of Resolution over Polynomial Calculus. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 23, 3 (2022), 16:1–16:24.
[28]
Jan Krajíček. 2018. Randomized feasible interpolation and monotone circuits with a local oracle. J. Math. Log. 18, 2 (2018), 1850012:1–1850012:27.
[29]
Massimo Lauria. 2018. A note about k-DNF resolution. Inf. Process. Lett. 137 (2018), 33–39.
[30]
Xin Li. 2023. Two Source Extractors for Asymptotically Optimal Entropy, and (Many) More. In 64th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2023, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, November 6-9, 2023. IEEE, 1271–1281.
[31]
Xin Li and Yan Zhong. 2023. Explicit Directional Affine Extractors and Improved Hardness for Linear Branching Programs. Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex. TR23-058 (2023). arxiv:TR22-046 https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2023/058
[32]
Mladen Miksa and Jakob Nordström. 2015. A Generalized Method for Proving Polynomial Calculus Degree Lower Bounds. In 30th Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2015, June 17-19, 2015, Portland, Oregon, USA (LIPIcs, Vol. 33), David Zuckerman (Ed.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 467–487.
[33]
Fedor Part and Iddo Tzameret. 2021. Resolution with Counting: Dag-Like Lower Bounds and Different Moduli. Comput. Complex. 30, 1 (2021), 2.
[34]
Pavel Pudlák and Russell Impagliazzo. 2000. A lower bound for DLL algorithms for k-SAT (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, January 9-11, 2000, San Francisco, CA, USA, David B. Shmoys (Ed.). ACM/SIAM, 128–136. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=338219.338244
[35]
Ran Raz and Iddo Tzameret. 2008. Resolution over linear equations and multilinear proofs. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 155, 3 (2008), 194–224.
[36]
A. A. Razborov. 1987. “Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth circuits over a complete basis with logical addition. Mat. Zametki 41 (1987), 598–607.
[37]
Roman Smolensky. 1987. Algebraic Methods in the Theory of Lower Bounds for Boolean Circuit Complexity. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1987, New York, New York, USA. 77–82.
[38]
Dmitry Sokolov. 2020. (Semi)Algebraic proofs over ±1 variables. In Proccedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2020, Chicago, IL, USA, June 22-26, 2020, Konstantin Makarychev, Yury Makarychev, Madhur Tulsiani, Gautam Kamath, and Julia Chuzhoy (Eds.). ACM, 78–90.
[39]
A. Urquhart. 1987. Hard Examples for Resolution. J. ACM 34, 1 (1987), 209–219.
[40]
D.J.A. Welsh. 1971. Generalized versions of Hall’s theorem. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 10, 2 (1971), 95–101. issn:0095-8956

Index Terms

  1. Lower Bounds for Regular Resolution over Parities

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    STOC 2024: Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 2024
    2049 pages
    ISBN:9798400703836
    DOI:10.1145/3618260
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 11 June 2024

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. binary pigeonhole principle
    2. lower bounds
    3. proof complexity
    4. regular resolution
    5. resolution over linear equations

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • Israel Science Foundation (ISF)
    • European Research Council

    Conference

    STOC '24
    Sponsor:
    STOC '24: 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 24 - 28, 2024
    BC, Vancouver, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

    Upcoming Conference

    STOC '25
    57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2025)
    June 23 - 27, 2025
    Prague , Czech Republic

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 138
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)138
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)35
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media