Lifting lower bounds for tree-like proofs

It is known that constant-depth Frege proofs of some tautologies require exponential size. No such lower bound result is known for more general proof systems. We consider tree-like sequent calculus proofs in which formulas can contain modular connectives and only the cut formulas are restricted to be of constant depth. Under a plausible hardness assumption concerning small-depth Boolean circuits, we prove exponential lower bounds for such proofs. We prove these lower bounds directly from the computational hardness assumption. We start with a lower bound for cut-free proofs and “lift” it so it applies to proofs with constant-depth cuts. By using the same approach, we obtain the following additional results. We provide a much simpler proof of a known unconditional lower bound in the case where modular connectives are not used. We establish a conditional exponential separation between the power of constant-depth proofs that use different modular connectives. We show that these tree-like proofs with constant-depth cuts cannot polynomially simulate similar dag-like proofs, even when the dag-like proofs are cut-free. We present a new proof of the non-finite axiomatizability of the theory of bounded arithmetic I Δ0(R). Finally, under a plausible hardness assumption concerning the polynomial-time hierarchy, we show that the hierarchy $${G_i^*}$$ of quantified propositional proof systems does not collapse.

[1]  Phuong Nguyen,et al.  Separating DAG-Like and Tree-Like Proof Systems , 2007, 22nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2007).

[2]  Roman Smolensky,et al.  Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity , 1987, STOC.

[3]  Peter Clote,et al.  Boolean Functions and Computation Models , 2002, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series.

[4]  Eli Ben-Sasson,et al.  Short proofs are narrow-resolution made simple , 1999, Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (Formerly: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference) (Cat.No.99CB36317).

[5]  Tsuyoshi Morioka,et al.  Logical approaches to the complexity of search problems: : proof complexity, quantified propositional calculus, and bounded arithmetic , 2005 .

[6]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Conditional Lower Bound for a System of Constant-Depth Proofs with Modular Connectives , 2006, 21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'06).

[7]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Non-Automatizability of Bounded-Depth Frege Proofs , 2004, computational complexity.

[8]  S. Shelah,et al.  Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 1991 .

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

[10]  J. Håstad Computational limitations of small-depth circuits , 1987 .

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

[12]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Bounded Arithmetic and the Polynomial Hierarchy , 1991, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

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

[14]  Zvi Galil,et al.  Proceedings of the 30th IEEE symposium on Foundations of computer science , 1994, FOCS 1994.

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

[16]  A. Yao Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles , 1985 .

[17]  S. Cook,et al.  Logical Foundations of Proof Complexity: INDEX , 2010 .

[18]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Quantified propositional calculi and fragments of bounded arithmetic , 1990, Math. Log. Q..

[19]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  A new proof of the weak pigeonhole principle , 2000, STOC '00.

[20]  Jan Krajicek Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic, and Complexity Theory: Preliminaries , 1995 .

[21]  Michael Sipser,et al.  Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy , 1981, 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1981).

[22]  Jeff B. Paris,et al.  Provability of the Pigeonhole Principle and the Existence of Infinitely Many Primes , 1988, J. Symb. Log..

[23]  R. Smolensky On representations by low-degree polynomials , 1993, Proceedings of 1993 IEEE 34th Annual Foundations of Computer Science.

[24]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory , 1995, Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications.

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

[26]  Jan Kra,et al.  Lower Bounds to the Size of Constant-depth Propositional Proofs , 1994 .

[27]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  Quantified propositional calculus and a second-order theory for NC1 , 2005, Arch. Math. Log..

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

[29]  Steven Perron,et al.  Power of Non-uniformity in Proof Complexity , 2009 .

[30]  Miklós Ajtai,et al.  The complexity of the Pigeonhole Principle , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[31]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  An Exponential Lower Bound for the Size of Monotone Real Circuits , 1999, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[32]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Non-Automatizability of Bounded-Depth Frege Proofs , 1999, Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (Formerly: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference) (Cat.No.99CB36317).

[33]  R. Statman Bounds for proof-search and speed-up in the predicate calculus , 1978 .