Showing 1–5 of 5 results for author: Hirsch, E A

Upper and Lower Bounds for the Linear Ordering Principle

Authors: Edward A. Hirsch, Ilya Volkovich

Abstract: Korten and Pitassi (FOCS, 2024) defined a new complexity class $L_2P$ as the polynomial-time Turing closure of the Linear Ordering Principle. They asked whether a Karp--Lipton--style collapse can be proven for $L_2P$. We answer this question affirmatively by showing that $P^{prMA}\subseteq L_2P$. As a byproduct, we also answer an open question of Chakaravarthy and Roy (Computational Complexity, 20… ▽ More Korten and Pitassi (FOCS, 2024) defined a new complexity class $L_2P$ as the polynomial-time Turing closure of the Linear Ordering Principle. They asked whether a Karp--Lipton--style collapse can be proven for $L_2P$. We answer this question affirmatively by showing that $P^{prMA}\subseteq L_2P$. As a byproduct, we also answer an open question of Chakaravarthy and Roy (Computational Complexity, 2011) whether $P^{prMA}\subseteq S_2P$. We complement this result by providing a new upper bound for $L_2P$, namely $L_2P\subseteq P^{prSBP}$. Thus we are placing $L_2P$ between $P^{prMA}$ and $P^{prSBP}$. One technical ingredient of this result is an algorithm that approximates the number of satisfying assignments of a Boolean circuit using a $prSBP$ oracle (i.e. in $FP^{prSBP}$), which could be of independent interest. Finally, we prove that $P^{prO_2P}\subseteq O_2P$, which implies that the Karp--Lipton--style collapse to $P^{prOMA}$ is actually better than both known collapses to $P^{prMA}$ due to Chakaravarthy and Roy (Computational Complexity, 2011) and to $O_2P$ also due to Chakaravarthy and Roy (STACS, 2006). △ Less

Submitted 24 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Proving Unsatisfiability with Hitting Formulas

Authors: Yuval Filmus, Edward A. Hirsch, Artur Riazanov, Alexander Smal, Marc Vinyals

Abstract: Hitting formulas have been studied in many different contexts at least since [Iwama,89]. A hitting formula is a set of Boolean clauses such that any two of them cannot be simultaneously falsified. [Peitl,Szeider,05] conjectured that hitting formulas should contain the hardest formulas for resolution. They supported their conjecture with experimental findings. Using the fact that hitting formulas a… ▽ More Hitting formulas have been studied in many different contexts at least since [Iwama,89]. A hitting formula is a set of Boolean clauses such that any two of them cannot be simultaneously falsified. [Peitl,Szeider,05] conjectured that hitting formulas should contain the hardest formulas for resolution. They supported their conjecture with experimental findings. Using the fact that hitting formulas are easy to check for satisfiability we use them to build a static proof system Hitting: a refutation of a CNF in Hitting is an unsatisfiable hitting formula such that each of its clauses is a weakening of a clause of the refuted CNF. Comparing this system to resolution and other proof systems is equivalent to studying the hardness of hitting formulas. We show that tree-like resolution and Hitting are quasi-polynomially separated. We prove that Hitting is quasi-polynomially simulated by tree-like resolution, thus hitting formulas cannot be exponentially hard for resolution, so Peitl-Szeider's conjecture is partially refuted. Nevertheless Hitting is surprisingly difficult to polynomially simulate. Using the ideas of PIT for noncommutative circuits [Raz-Shpilka,05] we show that Hitting is simulated by Extended Frege. As a byproduct, we show that a number of static (semi)algebraic systems are verifiable in a deterministic polynomial time. We consider multiple extensions of Hitting. Hitting(+) formulas are conjunctions of clauses containing affine equations instead of just literals, and every assignment falsifies at most one clause. The resulting system is related to Res(+) proof system for which no superpolynomial lower bounds are known: Hitting(+) simulates the tree-like version of Res(+) and is at least quasi-polynomially stronger. We show an exponential lower bound for Hitting(+). △ Less

Submitted 14 August, 2024; v1 submitted 13 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

MSC Class: 03F20 ACM Class: F.2.2

The power of the Binary Value Principle

Authors: Yaroslav Alekseev, Edward A. Hirsch

Abstract: The (extended) Binary Value Principle (eBVP: $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i2^{i-1} = -k$ for $k>0$ and $x^2_i=x_i$) has received a lot of attention recently, several lower bounds have been proved for it (Alekseev et al 2020, Alekseev 2021, Part and Tzameret 2021). Also it has been shown (Alekseev et al 2020) that the probabilistically verifiable Ideal Proof System (IPS) (Grochow and Pitassi 2018) together with… ▽ More The (extended) Binary Value Principle (eBVP: $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i2^{i-1} = -k$ for $k>0$ and $x^2_i=x_i$) has received a lot of attention recently, several lower bounds have been proved for it (Alekseev et al 2020, Alekseev 2021, Part and Tzameret 2021). Also it has been shown (Alekseev et al 2020) that the probabilistically verifiable Ideal Proof System (IPS) (Grochow and Pitassi 2018) together with eBVP polynomially simulates a similar semialgebraic proof system. In this paper we consider Polynomial Calculus with the algebraic version of Tseitin's extension rule (Ext-PC). Contrary to IPS, this is a Cook--Reckhow proof system. We show that in this context eBVP still allows to simulate similar semialgebraic systems. We also prove that it allows to simulate the Square Root Rule (Grigoriev and Hirsch 2003), which is in sharp contrast with the result of (Alekseev 2021) that shows an exponential lower bound on the size of Ext-PC derivations of the Binary Value Principle from its square. On the other hand, we demonstrate that eBVP probably does not help in proving exponential lower bounds for Boolean formulas: we show that an Ext-PC (even with the Square Root Rule) derivation of any unsatisfiable Boolean formula in CNF from eBVP must be of exponential size. △ Less

Submitted 29 November, 2022; v1 submitted 31 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: 21 pages

MSC Class: 03F20 ACM Class: F.2.2

Semi-Algebraic Proofs, IPS Lower Bounds and the $τ$-Conjecture: Can a Natural Number be Negative?

Authors: Yaroslav Alekseev, Dima Grigoriev, Edward A. Hirsch, Iddo Tzameret

Abstract: We introduce the binary value principle which is a simple subset-sum instance expressing that a natural number written in binary cannot be negative, relating it to central problems in proof and algebraic complexity. We prove conditional superpolynomial lower bounds on the Ideal Proof System (IPS) refutation size of this instance, based on a well-known hypothesis by Shub and Smale about the hardnes… ▽ More We introduce the binary value principle which is a simple subset-sum instance expressing that a natural number written in binary cannot be negative, relating it to central problems in proof and algebraic complexity. We prove conditional superpolynomial lower bounds on the Ideal Proof System (IPS) refutation size of this instance, based on a well-known hypothesis by Shub and Smale about the hardness of computing factorials, where IPS is the strong algebraic proof system introduced by Grochow and Pitassi (2018). Conversely, we show that short IPS refutations of this instance bridge the gap between sufficiently strong algebraic and semi-algebraic proof systems. Our results extend to full-fledged IPS the paradigm introduced in Forbes et al. (2016), whereby lower bounds against subsystems of IPS were obtained using restricted algebraic circuit lower bounds, and demonstrate that the binary value principle captures the advantage of semi-algebraic over algebraic reasoning, for sufficiently strong systems. Specifically, we show the following: (abstract continues in document.) △ Less

Submitted 15 November, 2019; originally announced November 2019.

On optimal heuristic randomized semidecision procedures, with application to proof complexity

Authors: Edward A. Hirsch, Dmitry Itsykson

Abstract: The existence of a (p-)optimal propositional proof system is a major open question in (proof) complexity; many people conjecture that such systems do not exist. Krajicek and Pudlak (1989) show that this question is equivalent to the existence of an algorithm that is optimal on all propositional tautologies. Monroe (2009) recently gave a conjecture implying that such algorithm does not exist. W… ▽ More The existence of a (p-)optimal propositional proof system is a major open question in (proof) complexity; many people conjecture that such systems do not exist. Krajicek and Pudlak (1989) show that this question is equivalent to the existence of an algorithm that is optimal on all propositional tautologies. Monroe (2009) recently gave a conjecture implying that such algorithm does not exist. We show that in the presence of errors such optimal algorithms do exist. The concept is motivated by the notion of heuristic algorithms. Namely, we allow the algorithm to claim a small number of false "theorems" (according to any samplable distribution on non-tautologies) and err with bounded probability on other inputs. Our result can also be viewed as the existence of an optimal proof system in a class of proof systems obtained by generalizing automatizable proof systems. △ Less

Submitted 3 February, 2010; v1 submitted 19 August, 2009; originally announced August 2009.

Comments: 11 pages, accepted to STACS 2010

ACM Class: F.2