Computational and Proof Complexity of Partial String Avoidability

The partial string avoidability problem is stated as follows: given a finite set of strings with possible “holes” (wildcard symbols), determine whether there exists a two-sided infinite string containing no substrings from this set, assuming that a hole matches every symbol. The problem is known to be NP-hard and in PSPACE, and this article establishes its PSPACE-completeness. Next, string avoidability over the binary alphabet is interpreted as a version of conjunctive normal form satisfiability problem, where each clause has infinitely many shifted variants. Non-satisfiability of these formulas can be proved using variants of classical propositional proof systems, augmented with derivation rules for shifting proof lines (such as clauses, inequalities, polynomials, etc.). First, it is proved that there is a particular formula that has a short refutation in Resolution with a shift rule but requires classical proofs of exponential size. At the same time, it is shown that exponential lower bounds for classical proof systems can be translated for their shifted versions. Finally, it is shown that superpolynomial lower bounds on the size of shifted proofs would separate NP from PSPACE; a connection to lower bounds on circuit complexity is also established.

[1]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  Formal Languages]: Mathematical Logic--mechanical theorem proving , 2022 .

[2]  Narad Rampersad,et al.  On the complexity of deciding avoidability of sets of partial words , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  Efficient string matching , 1975, Commun. ACM.

[4]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The Relative Efficiency of Propositional Proof Systems , 1979, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[5]  Raphaël M. Jungers,et al.  Testing avoidability on sets of partial words is hard , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Dominique Perrin,et al.  Finite and infinite words , 2002 .

[7]  Michael Alekhnovich,et al.  Lower bounds for polynomial calculus: non-binomial case , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

[8]  Jie-Hong Roland Jiang,et al.  QBF Resolution Systems and Their Proof Complexities , 2014, SAT.

[9]  Mikolás Janota,et al.  Expansion-based QBF solving versus Q-resolution , 2015, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Pavel Pudlák,et al.  Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations , 1997, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[11]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus and the Gröbner basis algorithm , 1999, computational complexity.

[12]  Olaf Beyersdorff,et al.  Reasons for Hardness in QBF Proof Systems , 2018, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[13]  Armin Haken,et al.  The Intractability of Resolution , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[14]  Hans Kleine Büning,et al.  Resolution for Quantified Boolean Formulas , 1995, Inf. Comput..

[15]  Moni Naor,et al.  Search problems in the decision tree model , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[16]  Alexander A. Razborov,et al.  Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus , 1998, computational complexity.

[17]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 2022 .

[18]  Olaf Beyersdorff,et al.  New Resolution-Based QBF Calculi and Their Proof Complexity , 2019, ACM Trans. Comput. Theory.