Mateus De Oliveira Oliveira
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
We introduce the notion of monotone linear programming circuits (MLP circuits), a model of computation for partial Boolean functions. Using this model, we prove the following results.1
(1) MLP circuits are superpolynomially stronger than monotone Boolean circuits.
(2) MLP circuits are exponentially stronger than monotone span programs over the reals.
(3) MLP circuits can be used to provide monotone feasibility interpolation theorems for Lovász-Schrijver proof systems and for mixed Lovász-Schrijver proof systems.
(4) The Lovász-Schrijver proof system cannot be polynomially simulated by the cutting planes proof system.
Finally, we establish connections between the problem of proving lower bounds for the size of MLP circuits and the field of extension complexity of polytopes.
- Michael Alekhnovich and Alexander A. Razborov. 2002. Satisfiability, branch-width and Tseitin tautologies. In Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’02). 593--603. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- László Babai, Anna Gál, and Avi Wigderson. 1999. Superpolynomial lower bounds for monotone span programs. Combinatorica 19, 3 (1999), 301--319.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Beame, Russell Impagliazzo, Jan Krajíček, Toniann Pitassi, and Pavel Pudlák. 1996. Lower bounds on Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz and propositional proofs. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 3, 1 (1996), 1--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Luisa Bonet, Toniann Pitassi, and Ran Raz. 1997. Lower bounds for cutting planes proofs with small coefficients. J. Symbol. Logic 62, 3 (1997), 708--728.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gábor Braun, Samuel Fiorini, Sebastian Pokutta, and David Steurer. 2015. Approximation limits of linear programs (beyond hierarchies). Math. Operat. Res. 40, 3 (2015), 756--772. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Braverman and Ankur Moitra. 2013. An information complexity approach to extended formulations. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 161--170. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samuel R. Buss and Toniann Pitassi. 1998. Good degree bounds on Nullstellensatz refutations of the induction principle. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 57, 2 (1998), 162--171. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mateus de Oliveira Oliveira and Pavel Pudlák. 2017. Representations of monotone Boolean functions by linear programs. In Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference (CCC’17), LIPIcs, Vol. 79. 3:1--3:14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samuel Fiorini, Serge Massar, Sebastian Pokutta, Hans Raj Tiwary, and Ronald De Wolf. 2015. Exponential lower bounds for polytopes in combinatorial optimization. J. ACM 62, 2 (2015), 17. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xudong Fu. 1998. Lower bounds on sizes of cutting planes proofs for modular coloring principles. In Proof Complexity and Feasible Arithmetics, Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop, New Brunswick, New Jersey, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Paul W. Beame and Samuel R. Buss (Eds.), Vol. 39. 135–148.Google Scholar
- Anna Gál. 2001. A characterization of span program size and improved lower bounds for monotone span programs. Comput. Complex. 10, 4 (2001), 277--296. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna Gál and Pavel Pudlák. 2003. A note on monotone complexity and the rank of matrices. Inform. Process. Lett. 87, 6 (2003), 321--326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michel X. Goemans. 2015. Smallest compact formulation for the permutahedron. Math. Program. 153, 1 (2015), 5--11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dima Grigoriev. 2001. Linear lower bound on degrees of Positivstellensatz calculus proofs for the parity. Theor. Comput. Sci. 259, 1 (2001), 613--622.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dima Grigoriev, Edward A Hirsch, and Dmitrii V Pasechnik. 2002. Complexity of semi-algebraic proofs. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Springer, 419--430. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Armin Haken. 1985. The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39 (1985), 297--308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Armin Haken and Stephen A Cook. 1999. An exponential lower bound for the size of monotone real circuits. J. Comput. System Sci. 58, 2 (1999), 326--335. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Russell Impagliazzo, Pavel Pudlák, and Jiri Sgall. 1999. Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus and the Gröbner basis algorithm. Comput. Complex. 8, 2 (1999), 127--144. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Karchmer and A. Wigderson. 1993. On span programs. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 102--111.Google Scholar
- Arist Kojevnikov and Dmitry Itsykson. 2006. Lower bounds of static Lovász-Schrijver calculus proofs for tseitin tautologies. In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Springer, 323--334. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Krajíček. 1997. Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic. J. Symbol. Logic 62, 02 (1997), 457--486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jan Krajíček. 2002. Interpolation and approximate semantic derivations. Math. Logic Quart. 48, 4 (2002), 602--606.Google ScholarCross Ref
- László Lovász and Alexander Schrijver. 1991. Cones of matrices and set-functions and 0-1 optimization. SIAM J. Optimiz. 1, 2 (1991), 166--190.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Toniann Pitassi and Nathan Segerlind. 2012. Exponential lower bounds and integrality gaps for tree-like Lovasz-Schrijver procedures. SIAM J. Comput. 41, 1 (2012), 128--159. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pavel Pudlák. 1997. Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations. J. Symbol. Logic 62, 03 (1997), 981--998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pavel Pudlák. 1999. On the complexity of the propositional calculus. Sets and Proofs, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series, S. Barry Cooper and John K. Truss (Eds.), Vol. 258. 197–218.Google Scholar
- Pavel Pudlák and Jiri Sgall. 1998. Algebraic models of computation and interpolation for algebraic proof systems. In Proceedings of Feasible Arithmetic and Proof Complexity, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 39. 279--295.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ran Raz and Avi Wigderson. 1992. Monotone circuits for matching require linear depth. J. ACM 39, 3 (1992), 736--744. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alexander A. Razborov. 1985. Lower bounds on monotone complexity of the logical permanent. Math. Not. 37, 6 (1985), 485--493.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander A. Razborov. 1990. Lower bounds for monotone complexity of boolean functions. Am. Math. Soc. Transl. 147 (1990), 75--84.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander A. Razborov. 1995. Unprovability of circuit size lower bounds in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic. Izvest. RAN 59, 1 (1995), 201--224.Google Scholar
- Alexander A. Razborov. 2016. Proof complexity and beyond. ACM SIGACT News 47, 2 (2016), 66--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert Robere, Toniann Pitassi, Benjamin Rossman, and Stephen A Cook. 2016. Exponential lower bounds for monotone span programs. In Proceedings of the IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’16). IEEE, 406--415.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas Rothvoß. 2014. The matching polytope has exponential extension complexity. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’14). ACM, 263--272. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alexander Schrijver. 2003. Combinatorial Optimization: Polyhedra and Efficiency. Vol. 24. Springer.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Representations of Monotone Boolean Functions by Linear Programs
Recommendations
Representations of monotone Boolean functions by linear programs
CCC '17: Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity ConferenceWe introduce the notion of monotone linear-programming circuits (MLP circuits), a model of computation for partial Boolean functions. Using this model, we prove the following results.
1. MLP circuits are superpolynomially stronger than monotone Boolean ...
On the automatizability of resolution and related propositional proof systems
A propositional proof system is automatizable if there is an algorithm that, given a tautology, produces a proof in time polynomial in the size of its smallest proof. This notion can be weakened if we allow the algorithm to produce a proof in a stronger ...
No feasible interpolation for TC/sup 0/-Frege proofs
FOCS '97: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer ScienceThe interpolation method has been one of the main tools for proving lower bounds for propositional proof systems. Loosely speaking, if one can prove that a particular proof system has the feasible interpolation property, then a generic reduction can (...
Comments