1 / 37

Iddo Tzameret Tel Aviv University

The Strength of Multilinear Proofs ( Joint work with Ran Raz ). Iddo Tzameret Tel Aviv University. Introduction : Algebraic Proof Systems. Algebraic Proofs. Fix a field Demonstrate a collection of polynomial-equations has no 0 / 1 solutions over. Example :

rossa
Download Presentation

Iddo Tzameret Tel Aviv University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Strength of Multilinear Proofs (Joint work withRan Raz) Iddo Tzameret Tel Aviv University

  2. Introduction:Algebraic Proof Systems

  3. Algebraic Proofs • Fix a field • Demonstrate a collection of polynomial-equations has no 0/1 solutions over Example: x1-x1x2=0, x2-x2x3=0, 1-x1=0, x3=0 xi2 – xi=0 for every i

  4. Algebraic Proofs x1-x1x2 =0 x2-x2x3 =0 1-x1 =0   x3 =0 x1x2-x1x2x3 =0 x1x3-x1x2x3 =0 +  x3x1-x1x2 =0 x1x3 =0 + x1-x1x3 =0 + 1-x1x3 =0 + =0 1

  5. The Polynomial Calculus Defn: A Polynomial Calculus (PC) refutationof p1, ... pk is a sequence of polynomials terminating with 1generated as follows (CEI96) : Axioms:pi , xi2-xi Inference rules: This enables completeness (the initial collection of polynomials is unsatisfiable over0/1 values)

  6. Translation of CNF Formulas We can consideralgebraic proof systemsas proof systems forCNFformulas: Ak-CNF: becomes a system of degree kmonomials: Where we add the following axioms (PCR):

  7. Complexity Measures of Algebraic Proofs Measuring the size of algebraic proofs: Total number of monomials ≈size of total depth 2 arithmetic formulas • Degree lower bounds imply many monomials: • Linear degree lower bound means exponential number of monomials in proofs (Impagliazzo+Pudlák+Sgall ‘99)

  8. Known degree lower bounds: • A low-degree version of theFunctionalPigeonhole Principle(Razb98, IPS99) – linear in the number of holes (n/2+1); EPHP(AR01) • Tseitin’sgraph tautologies(BGIP99, BSI99) – linear degree lower bounds • Random k-CNF’s(BSI99, AR01) – linear degree lower bounds • Pseudorandom Generatorstautologies (ABSRW00, Razb03)

  9. Proof/Circuitcorrespondence: (Informal) correspondence between circuit-based complexity classes and proof systems based on these circuits: Examples: AC0-Frege=bounded-depth Frege NC1-Frege=Frege P/poly-Frege = Extended-Frege Does showing lower bounds on proofs is at least as hard as showing lower bounds on circuits? proof lines consist of circuits from the prescribed class

  10. Motivation • Formulate an algebraic proof system stronger thanPC, ResolutionandPCR • But not “too strong”: Proof system based on a circuit class with known lower bounds • Illustrate the proof/circuit correspondence

  11. Algebraic Proofs over (General) Arithmetic Formulas

  12. Arithmetic Formulas • Field: • Variables: X1,...,Xn • Gates: • Every gate in the formula computes a polynomial in • Example:(X1· X1) ·(X2+ 1)

  13. Algebraic Proofs over Formulas Syntacticapproach: • Each proof line is an arithmetic formula • Should verify efficiently formulas conform to inference rules “Semantic”approach: • Each proof line is an arithmetic formula • Don’t care to verify efficiently formulas deduced from previous ones Example: AnyΨidenticalas a polynomial toΨ1+Ψ2 Ψ1Ψ2 Ψ1Ψ2 Semantic: Syntactic: Ψ Ψ1+Ψ2

  14. Algebraic Proofs over Formulas Syntactic approach: • Proofs are deterministically polynomial-time verifiable (Cook-Reckhow systems) Semantic approach: • Proofs are probabilistically polynomial-time verifiable (polynomial identity testingin BPP) In P? Open problem

  15. Algebraic Proofs over Formulas In both semantic and syntactic approachesconsideringgeneral arithmetic formulas make algebraic proofs considerably strong: • Polynomially simulate entireFregesystem(BIKPRS97, Pit97, GH03) (Super-polynomial lower bounds for Frege proofs: fundamental open problem) • No super-polynomial lower bounds are known for general arithmetic formulas

  16. Algebraic Proofs over Multilinear Arithmetic Formulas

  17. Multilinear Formulas • Every gate in the formula computes a multilinear polynomial • Example:(X1·X2) + (X2·X3) • (No high powers of variables) • Unbounded fan-in gates (we shall consider bounded- depth formulas)

  18. Multilinear Formulas Super-polynomial lower bounds on multilinear arithmetic formulas for the Determinant and Permanent functions (Raz04),and also for other polynomials(Raz04b), were recently proved

  19. Multilinear Proofs-Definition We take the SEMANTIC approach: Defn. A formula Multilinear Calculus() refutationof p1,...,pk is a sequence of multilinear polynomials represented as multilinear formulas terminatingwith1 generated as follows: fMC Axioms: Inference rules: g·f is multilinear equivalent to multiplying by a single variable Size= total size of multilinear formulas in the refutation

  20. Multilinear Proofs • Are multilinear proofsstrong “enough”: • What can multilinear proof systemsproveefficiently? • Which systems can multilinear proofs polynomiallysimulate? • What aboutbounded-depthmultilinearproofs? • Connections to multilinear circuit complexity?

  21. Results Polynomial Simulations: • Depth 2-fMCpolynomially simulates Resolution, PC (and PCR) Efficient proofs: • Depth 3-fMC(over characteristic 0)has polynomial-size refutations of theFunctional Pigeonhole Principle • Depth 3-fMChas polynomial-size refutations of the Tseitinmodp contradictions (over any characteristic) depth 2 multilinear formulas

  22. Corollary: separation results Known size lower bounds: Resolution: • Functional PHP[Hak85] • Tseitin[Urq87, BSW99] PC (and PCR): • Low-degree version of thefunctional PHP[Razb98, IPS99], EPHP [AR01] • Tseitin’sgraph tautologies[BGIP99, BSI99, ABSRW00] Bounded-depth Frege: • Functional PHP[PBI93, KPW95] • Tseitin mod 2[BS02]

  23. Frege systems Bounded-depth Frege Modp Multilinear proofs Depth 3-Multilinear proofs PCR over Zp Bounded- depth Frege Resolution PC over Zp

  24. Defn.(multilinearization of p)For a polynomial p, M[p] is the unique multilinear polynomial equal to p modulo Q= unsatisfiable set of multilinear polynomials (p1,...,pm)= sequence of polynomials that forms a PCR refutation of Q For all im, Ψiis a multilinearformulafor M[pi] S:=|Ψi|andd:=Max(depth(Ψi)) Theorem: Depth d-fMC has a polynomial-size (in S) refutation of Q Example: • (Proof.) Consider(M[p1],…,M[pm]). • Let U:=(Ψ1,…,Ψm); Does U constitute a legitimate fMC proof? m NO: M[pj] M[xi·pj] pj NOTE: If xi occurs in pj then M[xi·pj]xi·M[pj] xi·pj General simulation result:

  25. General Simulation Result Lemma:Letφbea depthdmultilinear formula computing M[p].Then there is adepthd-fMCproofofM[x·p] from M[p] of size O(|φ|). One should check that everything can be done without increasing the size & depth of formulas

  26. Results • Proof\Circuitcorrespondence: Theorem:An explicit separation between proofs manipulating general arithmetic circuitsand proofs manipulating multilinearcircuitsimplies a lower bound on multilinear circuits for an explicit polynomial. No such lower bound is known

  27. Multilinear Proofs\Circuit Correspondence

  28. * * • Defn. • cPCR – semantic algebraic proofs where polynomials are represented as generalarithmetic circuits • cMC – extension of fMC to multilinear arithmeticcircuits Theorem:Let Q be an unsatisfiable set of multilinear polynomials. If Q cPCR Q and cMC then there is an explicit polynomial with NO p-size multilinear circuit

  29. * * * Proof. arithmetic circuits (C1,...,Cm): Q cPCR Q andcMC (p1,...,pm) (piis the polynomialCi computes) (M[p1],...,M[pm]) (φ1,...,φm) (φ1 computes M[pi]) multilinear circuits by the general simulation result Ifi=1|φi|=poly(n) then m Q cMC Thusi=1|φi|>poly(n), and so m i=1zi·M[pi] has no p-size multilinear circuit. m zi - new variables

  30. The FunctionalPigeonhole Principle

  31. Functional Pigeonhole Principle (¬FPHP): mpigeons andnholes Abbreviate: yk:=x1k+…+xmk Gn:=y1+...+yn;roughly asumofnBoolean variables (by the Holes axioms)

  32. A depth 3-fMC refutation of ¬FPHP Roughly can be reduced in PCR to proving: Gn·(Gn-1)·…·(Gn-n) • By the general simulation result suffices: • Show aPCRproof ofπofGn·(Gn-1)·…·(Gn-n)withpolynomial#of steps • Show that themultilinearizationof each polynomial inπhas p-size depth 3-multilinear formula

  33. Step 2: Observation:Each polynomial in the PCR refutation is a product of const number of symmetric polynomials, each over some (not necessarily disjoint) subset of basic variables (xij)

  34. Example: A typical PCR proof line from the previous refutation: Gi+1·(Gi-1)·…·(Gi-i)·(yi+1-1) x11 x12 … x1i x1(i+1) … x1n x21 x22 … x2i x2(i+1) … x2n ... ... ... xm1 xm2 … xmi xm(i+1) … xmn Gi+1symmetric over (Gi−1) · · · (Gi−i) symmetric over (yi+1−1)is symmetric over

  35. Proposition: Multilinearization of product of const number of symmetric polynomials, each over some different (not necessarily disjoint) subset of basic variables (xij), has p-size depth 3 multilinear formulas (over char0) • Note: these are not symmetric polynomials in themselves Proof based on: Theorem (Ben-Or): Multilinearsymmetricpolynomials have p-sizedepth 3 multilinearformulas (over char 0)

  36. * Further Research: 1)Weaker algebraic systems based on arithmetic formulas (susceptible to lower bounds?Nullstellensatzproofs) 2) Proof/circuit correspondence: one of the following is true: i) Extended-Frege/Frege separation impliesArithmetic circuit/formula separation ii) Frege “polynomial identity testing is in NP/poly” (note in preparation)

  37. Thank You!

More Related