The Proof Complexity of Polynomial Identities

Devising an efficient deterministic -- or even a non-deterministic sub-exponential time -- algorithm for testing polynomial identities is a fundamental problem in algebraic complexity and complexity at large. Motivated by this problem, as well as by results from proof complexity, we investigate the complexity of _proving_ polynomial identities. To this end, we study a class of equational proof systems, of varying strength, operating with polynomial identities written as arithmetic formulas over a given ring. A proof in these systems establishes that two arithmetic formulas compute the same polynomial, and consists of a sequence of equations between polynomials, written as arithmetic formulas, where each equation in the sequence is derived from previous equations by means of the polynomial-ring axioms. We establish the first non-trivial upper and lower bounds on the size of equational proofs of polynomial identities, as follows: 1. Polynomial-size upper bounds on equational proofs of identities involving symmetric polynomials and interpolation-based identities. In particular, we show that basic properties of the elementary symmetric polynomials are efficiently provable already in equational proofs operating with depth-4 formulas, over infinite fields. This also yields polynomial-size depth-4 proofs of the Newton identities, providing a positive answer to a question posed by Grigoriev and Hirsch [GH03]. 2. Exponential-size lower bounds on (full, unrestricted) equational proofs of identities over certain specific rings. 3. Exponential-size lower bounds on analytic proofs operating with depth-3 formulas, under a certain regularity condition. The ``analytic'' requirement is, roughly, a condition that forbids introducing arbitrary formulas in a proof and the regularity condition is an additional structural restriction. 4. Exponential-size lower bounds on one-way proofs (of unrestricted depth) over infinite fields. Here, one-way proofs are analytic proofs, in which one is also not allowed to introduce arbitrary constants. Furthermore, we determine basic structural characterizations of equational proofs, and consider relations with polynomial identity testing procedures. Specifically, we show that equational proofs efficiently simulate the polynomial identity testing algorithm provided by Dvir and Shpilka [DS04].

[1]  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).

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

[3]  N. Meyers,et al.  H = W. , 1964, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

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

[7]  Zeev Dvir,et al.  Hardness-randomness tradeoffs for bounded depth arithmetic circuits , 2008, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Zeev Dvir,et al.  Locally Decodable Codes with Two Queries and Polynomial Identity Testing for Depth 3 Circuits , 2007, SIAM J. Comput..

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

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

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

[12]  Amir Shpilka,et al.  Black Box Polynomial Identity Testing of Depth-3 Arithmetic Circuits with Bounded Top Fan-in , 2007, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[13]  Ran Raz,et al.  The Strength of Multilinear Proofs , 2008, computational complexity.

[14]  Neeraj Kayal,et al.  Polynomial Identity Testing for Depth 3 Circuits , 2006, 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'06).

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

[16]  Ran Raz,et al.  Resolution over linear equations and multilinear proofs , 2007, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

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

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

[19]  Nitin Saxena,et al.  An Almost Optimal Rank Bound for Depth-3 Identities , 2008, 2009 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[20]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Derandomizing Polynomial Identity Tests Means Proving Circuit Lower Bounds , 2003, STOC '03.

[21]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The proof complexity of linear algebra , 2002, Proceedings 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[22]  Amir Shpilka,et al.  Black box polynomial identity testing of generalized depth-3 arithmetic circuits with bounded top fan-in , 2008, 2008 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity.

[23]  Jan Krajícek,et al.  Lower bounds to the size of constant-depth propositional proofs , 1994, Journal of Symbolic Logic.