Computational and Proof Complexity of Partial String Avoidability

The partial string avoidability problem, also known as partial word avoidability, is stated as follows: given a finite set of strings with possible ``holes'' (undefined symbols), determine whether there exists any 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 paper establishes its PSPACE-completeness. Next, string avoidability over the binary alphabet is interpreted as a version of conjunctive normal form (CNF) satisfiability problem (SAT), with each clause having 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 constraints (such as clauses, inequalities, polynomials, etc). Two results on their proof complexity are established. First, there is a particular formula that has a short refutation in Resolution with shift, but requires classical proofs of exponential size (Resolution, Cutting Plane, Polynomial Calculus, etc.). At the same time, exponential lower bounds for shifted versions of classical proof systems are established.

[1]  M. Lothaire Algebraic Combinatorics on Words , 2002 .

[2]  Mikolás Janota,et al.  On Unification of QBF Resolution-Based Calculi , 2014, MFCS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  Mikolás Janota,et al.  Proof Complexity of Resolution-based QBF Calculi , 2015, STACS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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