The Strength of Multilinear Proofs

Abstract.We introduce an algebraic proof system that manipulates multilinear arithmetic formulas. We show that this proof system is fairly strong, even when restricted to multilinear arithmetic formulas of a very small depth. Specifically, we show the following: 1.Algebraic proofs manipulating depth 2 multilinear arithmetic formulas polynomially simulate Resolution, Polynomial Calculus (PC) and Polynomial Calculus with Resolution (PCR) proofs;2.Polynomial size proofs manipulating depth 3 multilinear arithmetic formulas for the functional pigeonhole principle;3.Polynomial size proofs manipulating depth 3 multilinear arithmetic formulas for Tseitin’s graph tautologies. By known lower bounds, this demonstrates that algebraic proof systems manipulating depth 3 multilinear formulas are strictly stronger than Resolution, PC and PCR, and have an exponential gap over bounded-depth Frege for both the functional pigeonhole principle and Tseitin’s graph tautologies.We also illustrate a connection between lower bounds on multilinear proofs and lower bounds on multilinear circuits. In particular, we show that (an explicit) super-polynomial size separation between proofs manipulating general arithmetic circuits and proofs manipulating multilinear circuits implies a super-polynomial size lower bound on multilinear circuits for an explicit family of polynomials.

[1]  Dima Grigoriev,et al.  Algebraic proof systems over formulas , 2003, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[2]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Depth-3 arithmetic circuits over fields of characteristic zero , 2002, computational complexity.

[3]  Michael Alekhnovich,et al.  Pseudorandom generators in propositional proof complexity , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[4]  Ran Raz,et al.  Deterministic polynomial identity testing in non commutative models , 2004 .

[5]  Michael Alekhnovich,et al.  Space Complexity in Propositional Calculus , 2002, SIAM J. Comput..

[6]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Random Cnf’s are Hard for the Polynomial Calculus , 1999, 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039).

[7]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple , 2001, JACM.

[8]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Multilinear formulas and skepticism of quantum computing , 2003, STOC '04.

[9]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Random Cnf’s are Hard for the Polynomial Calculus , 2010, computational complexity.

[10]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Depth-3 arithmetic formulae over fields of characteristic zero , 1999, Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (Formerly: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference) (Cat.No.99CB36317).

[11]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Proof complexity in algebraic systems and bounded depth Frege systems with modular counting , 1997, computational complexity.

[12]  Jacob T. Schwartz,et al.  Fast Probabilistic Algorithms for Verification of Polynomial Identities , 1980, J. ACM.

[13]  Zeev Dvir,et al.  Locally decodable codes with 2 queries and polynomial identity testing for depth 3 circuits , 2005, STOC '05.

[14]  Ran Raz,et al.  Multi-linear formulas for permanent and determinant are of super-polynomial size , 2004, STOC '04.

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

[16]  R. Impagliazzo,et al.  Lower bounds on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and propositional proofs , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[17]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Linear gaps between degrees for the polynomial calculus modulo distinct primes , 1999, Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (Formerly: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference) (Cat.No.99CB36317).

[18]  Eli Ben-Sasson.  Hard examples for the bounded depth Frege proof system , 2003, computational complexity.

[19]  Ran Raz,et al.  Deterministic polynomial identity testing in non-commutative models , 2004, Proceedings. 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004..

[20]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Algebraic Propositional Proof Systems , 1996, Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models.

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

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

[23]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability , 1996, STOC '96.

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

[25]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle , 1992, STOC '92.

[26]  Neeraj Kayal,et al.  Polynomial Identity Testing for Depth 3 Circuits , 2006, Computational Complexity Conference.

[27]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  An Exponenetioal Lower Bound to the Size of Bounded Depth Frege Proofs of the Pigeonhole Principle , 1995, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[28]  R. Raz.  Multilinear-NC 1 != Multilinear-NC 2 , 2004, FOCS 2004.

[29]  Noga Alon,et al.  Eigenvalues and expanders , 1986, Comb..

[30]  Richard Zippel,et al.  Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials , 1979, EUROSAM.

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

[32]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Propositional Proof Complexity: Past, Present and Future , 2001, Bull. EATCS.

[33]  Ran Raz.  Multilinear-NC1 != Multilinear-NC2 , 2004, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

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