Search for: All records

Connections between proof complexity and circuit complexity have become major tools for obtaining lower bounds in both areas. These connections - which take the form of interpolation theorems and query-to-communication lifting theorems - translate efficient proofs into small circuits, and vice versa, allowing tools from one area to be applied to the other. Recently, the theory of TFNP has emerged as a unifying framework underlying these connections. For many of the proof systems which admit such a connection there is a TFNP problem which characterizes it: the class of problems which are reducible to this TFNP problem via query-efficient reductions is equivalent to the tautologies that can be efficiently proven in the system. Through this, proof complexity has become a major tool for proving separations in black-box TFNP. Similarly, for certain monotone circuit models, the class of functions that it can compute efficiently is equivalent to what can be reduced to a certain TFNP problem in a communication-efficient manner. When a TFNP problem has both a proof and circuit characterization, one can prove an interpolation theorem. Conversely, many lifting theorems can be viewed as relating the communication and query reductions to TFNP problems. This is exciting, as it suggests that TFNP provides a roadmap for the development of further interpolation theorems and lifting theorems. In this paper we begin to develop a more systematic understanding of when these connections to TFNP occur. We give exact conditions under which a proof system or circuit model admits a characterization by a TFNP problem. We show: - Every well-behaved proof system which can prove its own soundness (a reflection principle) is characterized by a TFNP problem. Conversely, every TFNP problem gives rise to a well-behaved proof system which proves its own soundness. - Every well-behaved monotone circuit model which admits a universal family of functions is characterized by a TFNP problem. Conversely, every TFNP problem gives rise to a well-behaved monotone circuit model with a universal problem. As an example, we provide a TFNP characterization of the Polynomial Calculus, answering a question from [Mika Göös et al., 2022], and show that it can prove its own soundness. 

We further the study of supercritical tradeoffs in proof and circuit complexity, which is a type of tradeoff between complexity parameters where restricting one complexity parameter forces another to exceed its worst-case upper bound. In particular, we prove a new family of supercritical tradeoffs between depth and size for Resolution, Res(k), and Cutting Planes proofs. For each of these proof systems we construct, for each c ≤ n^{1-ε}, a formula with n^{O(c)} clauses and n variables that has a proof of size n^{O(c)} but in which any proof of size no more than roughly exponential in n^{1-ε}/c must necessarily have depth ≈ n^c. By setting c = o(n^{1-ε}) we therefore obtain exponential lower bounds on proof depth; this far exceeds the trivial worst-case upper bound of n. In doing so we give a simplified proof of a supercritical depth/width tradeoff for tree-like Resolution from [Alexander A. Razborov, 2016]. Finally, we outline several conjectures that would imply similar supercritical tradeoffs between size and depth in circuit complexity via lifting theorems. 

We develop a new semi-algebraic proof system called Stabbing Planes which formalizes modern branch-and-cut algorithms for integer programming and is in the style of DPLL-based modern SAT solvers. As with DPLL there is only a single rule: the current polytope can be subdivided by branching on an inequality and its “integer negation.” That is, we can (non-deterministically choose) a hyperplane ax ≥ b with integer coefficients, which partitions the polytope into three pieces: the points in the polytope satisfying ax ≥ b, the points satisfying ax ≤ b, and the middle slab b − 1 < ax < b. Since the middle slab contains no integer points it can be safely discarded, and the algorithm proceeds recursively on the other two branches. Each path terminates when the current polytope is empty, which is polynomial-time checkable. Among our results, we show that Stabbing Planes can efficiently simulate the Cutting Planes proof system, and is equivalent to a tree-like variant of the R(CP) system of Krajicek [54]. As well, we show that it possesses short proofs of the canonical family of systems of F_2-linear equations known as the Tseitin formulas. Finally, we prove linear lower bounds on the rank of Stabbing Planes refutations by adapting lower bounds in communication complexity and use these bounds in order to show that Stabbing Planes proofs cannot be balanced.