NDLI: Space Complexity in Polynomial Calculus

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

Space Complexity in Polynomial Calculus

Content Provider	Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)
Author	Thapen, Neil Ron-Zewi, Noga Filmus, Yuval Nordström, Jakob Lauria, Massimo
Copyright Year	2015
Abstract	During the last 10 to 15 years, an active line of research in proof complexity has been to study space complexity and time-space trade-offs for proofs. Besides being a natural complexity measure of intrinsic interest, space is also an important concern in SAT solving, and so research has mostly focused on weak systems that are used by SAT solvers. There has been a relatively long sequence of papers on space in resolution, which is now reasonably well-understood from this point of view. For other proof systems of interest, however, such as polynomial calculus or cutting planes, progress has been more limited. Essentially nothing has been known about space complexity in cutting planes, and for polynomial calculus the only lower bound has been for conjunctive normal form (CNF) formulas of unbounded width in [Alekhnovich et al., SIAM J. Comput., 31 (2002), pp. 1184--1211], where the space lower bound is smaller than the initial width of the clauses in the formulas. Thus, in particular, it has been consistent with current knowledge that polynomial calculus could be able to refute any $k$-CNF formula in constant space. In this paper, we prove several new results on space in polynomial calculus (PC) and in the extended proof system polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) studied by Alekhnovich et al.: (1) We prove an $\omega(n)$ space lower bound in PC for the canonical 3-CNF version of the pigeonhole principle formulas $PHP_{m}^{n}$ with $m$ pigeons and $n$ holes, and show that this is tight. (2) For PCR, we prove an $\omega(n)$ space lower bound for a bitwise encoding of the functional pigeonhole principle. These formulas have width O(log n), and hence this is an exponential improvement over Alekhnovich et al. measured in the width of the formulas. (3) We then present another encoding of the pigeonhole principle that has constant width, and prove an $\omega(n)$ space lower bound in PCR for these formulas as well. (4) Finally, we prove that any $k$-CNF formula can be refuted in PC in simultaneous exponential size and linear space (which holds for resolution and thus for PCR, but was not obviously the case for PC). We also characterize a natural class of CNF formulas for which the space complexity in resolution and PCR does not change when the formula is transformed into 3-CNF in the canonical way, something that we believe can be useful when proving PCR space lower bounds for other well-studied formula families in proof complexity.
Starting Page	1119
Ending Page	1153
Page Count	35
File Format	PDF
ISSN	00975397
DOI	10.1137/120895950
e-ISSN	10957111
Journal	SIAM Journal on Computing (SMJCAT)
Issue Number	4
Volume Number	44
Language	English
Publisher	Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Publisher Date	2015-08-26
Access Restriction	Subscribed
Subject Keyword	Computational difficulty of problems polynomial calculus Mechanization of proofs and logical operations Classical propositional logic proof complexity resolution space lower bounds Logic in computer science Complexity of proofs Theorem proving polynomial calculus resolution Complexity of computation PCR
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Mathematics Computer Science

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Narrow Proofs May Be Spacious:Separating Space and Width in Resolution

Regular Resolution Versus Unrestricted Resolution

The Efficiency of Resolution and Davis--Putnam Procedures

Lower Bounds for k-DNF Resolution on Random 3-CNFs

DRAT and Propagation Redundancy Proofs Without New Variables

Size-Space Tradeoffs for Resolution

$P \ne NP$, propositional proof complexity, and resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle

Characterizing Propositional Proofs as Noncommutative Formulas

Time-Space Trade-offs in Resolution: Superpolynomial Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space

Space Complexity in Polynomial Calculus

Similar Documents

Narrow Proofs May Be Spacious:Separating Space and Width in Resolution

Regular Resolution Versus Unrestricted Resolution

The Efficiency of Resolution and Davis--Putnam Procedures

Lower Bounds for k-DNF Resolution on Random 3-CNFs

DRAT and Propagation Redundancy Proofs Without New Variables

Size-Space Tradeoffs for Resolution

$P \ne NP$, propositional proof complexity, and resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle

Characterizing Propositional Proofs as Noncommutative Formulas

Time-Space Trade-offs in Resolution: Superpolynomial Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space

Space Complexity in Polynomial Calculus