Search

We consider the graph $k$-colouring problem encoded as a set of polynomial equations in the standard way over $0/1$-valued variables. We prove that there are bounded-degree graphs that do not have legal $k$-colourings but for which the polynomial calculus proof system defined in [Clegg et al '96, Alekhnovich et al '02] requires linear degree, and hence exponential size, to establish this fact. This implies a linear degree lower bound for any algorithms based on Gr\"{o}bner bases solving graph $k$-colouring using this encoding. The same bound applies also for the algorithm studied in a sequence of papers [De Loera et al '08,'09,'11,'15] based on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz proofs for a slightly different encoding, thus resolving an open problem mentioned in [De Loera et al '08,'09,'11] and [Li '16]. We obtain our results by combining the polynomial calculus degree lower bound for functional pigeonhole principle (FPHP) formulas over bounded-degree bipartite graphs in [Mik\v{s}a and Nordstr\"{o}m '15] with a reduction from FPHP to $k$-colouring derivable by polynomial calculus in constant degree.

We consider the pebble game on DAGs with bounded fan-in introduced in [Paterson and Hewitt '70] and the reversible version of this game in [Bennett '89], and study the question of how hard it is to decide exactly or approximately the number of pebbles needed for a given DAG in these games. We prove that the problem of eciding whether $s$~pebbles suffice to reversibly pebble a DAG $G$ is PSPACE-complete, as was previously shown for the standard pebble game in [Gilbert, Lengauer and Tarjan '80]. Via two different graph product constructions we then strengthen these results to establish that both standard and reversible pebbling space are PSPACE-hard to approximate to within any additive constant. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first hardness of approximation results for pebble games in an unrestricted setting (even for polynomial time). Also, since [Chan '13] proved that reversible pebbling is equivalent to the games in [Dymond and Tompa '85] and [Raz and McKenzie '99], our results apply to the Dymond--Tompa and Raz--McKenzie games as well, and from the same paper it follows that resolution depth is PSPACE-hard to determine up to any additive constant. We also obtain a multiplicative logarithmic separation between reversible and standard pebbling space. This improves on the additive logarithmic separation previously known and could plausibly be tight, although we are not able to prove this. We leave as an interesting open problem whether our additive hardness of approximation result could be strengthened to a multiplicative bound if the computational resources are decreased from polynomial space to the more common setting of polynomial time.

Unrefinable partitions are a subset of partitions into distinct parts which satisfy an additional unrefinability property. More precisely, being an unrefinable partition means that none of the parts can be written as the sum of smaller integers without introducing a repetition. We address the algorithmic aspects of unrefinable partitions, such as testing whether a given partition is unrefinable or not and enumerating all the partitions whose sum is a given integer. We design two algorithms to solve the two mentioned problems and we discuss their complexity.

A partition into distinct parts is refinable if one of its parts $a$ can be replaced by two different integers which do not belong to the partition and whose sum is $a$, and it is unrefinable otherwise. Clearly, the condition of being unrefinable imposes on the partition a non-trivial limitation on the size of the largest part and on the possible distributions of the parts. We prove a $O(n^{1/2})$-upper bound for the largest part in an unrefinable partition of $n$, and we call maximal those which reach the bound. We show a complete classification of maximal unrefinable partitions for triangular numbers, proving that if $n$ is even there exists only one maximal unrefinable partition of $n(n+1)/2$, and that if $n$ is odd the number of such partitions equals the number of partitions of $\lceil n/2\rceil$ into distinct parts. In the second case, an explicit bijection is provided.

We prove that for $k \ll \sqrt[4]{n}$ regular resolution requires length $n^{\Omega(k)}$ to establish that an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi graph with appropriately chosen edge density does not contain a $k$-clique. This lower bound is optimal up to the multiplicative constant in the exponent, and also implies unconditional $n^{\Omega(k)}$ lower bounds on running time for several state-of-the-art algorithms for finding maximum cliques in graphs.

Proofs in propositional logic are typically presented as trees of derived formulas or, alternatively, as directed acyclic graphs of derived formulas. This distinction between tree-like vs. dag-like structure is particularly relevant when making quantitative considerations regarding, for example, proof size. Here we analyze a more general type of structural restriction for proofs in rule-based proof systems. In this definition, proofs are directed graphs of derived formulas in which cycles are allowed as long as every formula is derived at least as many times as it is required as a premise. We call such proofs "circular". We show that, for all sets of standard inference rules with single or multiple conclusions, circular proofs are sound. We start the study of the proof complexity of circular proofs at Circular Resolution, the circular version of Resolution. We immediately see that Circular Resolution is stronger than Dag-like Resolution since, as we show, the propositional encoding of the pigeonhole principle has circular Resolution proofs of polynomial size. Furthermore, for derivations of clauses from clauses, we show that Circular Resolution is, surprisingly, equivalent to Sherali-Adams, a proof system for reasoning through polynomial inequalities that has linear programming at its base. As corollaries we get: 1) polynomial-time (LP-based) algorithms that find Circular Resolution proofs of constant width, 2) examples that separate Circular from Dag-like Resolution, such as the pigeonhole principle and its variants, and 3) exponentially hard cases for Circular Resolution. Contrary to the case of Circular Resolution, for Frege we show that circular proofs can be converted into tree-like proofs with at most polynomial overhead., Comment: 4 figures

We exhibit families of $4$-CNF formulas over $n$ variables that have sums-of-squares (SOS) proofs of unsatisfiability of degree (a.k.a. rank) $d$ but require SOS proofs of size $n^{\Omega(d)}$ for values of $d = d(n)$ from constant all the way up to $n^{\delta}$ for some universal constant$\delta$. This shows that the $n^{O(d)}$ running time obtained by using the Lasserre semidefinite programming relaxations to find degree-$d$ SOS proofs is optimal up to constant factors in the exponent. We establish this result by combining $\mathsf{NP}$-reductions expressible as low-degree SOS derivations with the idea of relativizing CNF formulas in [Kraj\'i\v{c}ek '04] and [Dantchev and Riis'03], and then applying a restriction argument as in [Atserias, M\"uller, and Oliva '13] and [Atserias, Lauria, and Nordstr\"om '14]. This yields a generic method of amplifying SOS degree lower bounds to size lower bounds, and also generalizes the approach in [ALN14] to obtain size lower bounds for the proof systems resolution, polynomial calculus, and Sherali-Adams from lower bounds on width, degree, and rank, respectively.

In 2003, Atserias and Dalmau resolved a major open question about the resolution proof system by establishing that the space complexity of CNF formulas is always an upper bound on the width needed to refute them. Their proof is beautiful but somewhat mysterious in that it relies heavily on tools from finite model theory. We give an alternative, completely elementary proof that works by simple syntactic manipulations of resolution refutations. As a by-product, we develop a "black-box" technique for proving space lower bounds via a "static" complexity measure that works against any resolution refutation---previous techniques have been inherently adaptive. We conclude by showing that the related question for polynomial calculus (i.e., whether space is an upper bound on degree) seems unlikely to be resolvable by similar methods.

We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n^Omega(w). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n^O(w) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. Our results do not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, where the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w.

In this note we show that any $k$-CNF which can be refuted by a quasi-polynomial $\mathsf{Res}^*(\mathsf{polylog})$ refutation has a "narrow" refutation in $\mathsf{Res}$ (i.e., of poly-logarithmic width). We also show the converse implication: a narrow Resolution refutation can be simulated by a short $\mathsf{Res}^*(\mathsf{polylog})$ refutation. The author does not claim priority on this result. The technical part of this note bears similarity with the relation between $d$-depth Frege refutations and tree-like $d+1$-depth Frege refutations outlined in (Kraj\'i\v{c}ek 1994, Journal of Symbolic Logic 59, 73). Part of it had already been specialized to $\mathsf{Res}$ and $\mathsf{Res}(k)$ in (Esteban et al. 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci. 321, 347).

We say that a graph with $n$ vertices is $c$-Ramsey if it does not contain either a clique or an independent set of size $c \log n$. We define a CNF formula which expresses this property for a graph $G$. We show a superpolynomial lower bound on the length of resolution proofs that $G$ is $c$-Ramsey, for every graph $G$. Our proof makes use of the fact that every Ramsey graph must contain a large subgraph with some of the statistical properties of the random graph., Comment: 14 pages