Logic seminar
1. Provable learning: P proves efficiently that p-size circuits are learnable by subexponential-size circuits over the uniform distribution with membership queries.
2. Provable automatability: P proves efficiently that P is automatable by non-uniform circuits on propositional formulas expressing p-size circuit lower bounds.
Here, P is sufficiently strong and well-behaved if I.-III. holds: I. P p-simulates Jeřábek's system WF (which strengthens the Extended Frege system EF by a surjective weak pigeonhole principle); II. P satisfies some basic properties of standard proof systems which p-simulate WF; III. P proves efficiently for some Boolean function h that h is hard on average for circuits of subexponential size. For example, if III. holds for P=WF, then Items 1 and 2 are equivalent for P=WF.
If there is a function h in NE\cap coNE which is hard on average for circuits of size 2^{n/4}, for each sufficiently big n, then there is an explicit propositional proof system P satisfying properties I.-III., i.e. the equivalence of Items 1 and 2 holds for P.
This is joint work with Rahul Santhanam.
This talk is based on a joint work with Maria Luisa Bonet.
For each k >= 1, there is a language L in NP such that circuits for L of size O(n^k) cannot be learned in deterministic polynomial time with access to n^o(1) EQs.
We employ such results to investigate the (un)provability of non-uniform circuit upper bounds (e.g., Is NP contained in SIZE[n^3]?) in theories of bounded arithmetic. Some questions of this form have been addressed in recent papers of Krajicek-Oliveira (2017), Muller-Bydzovsky (2020), and Bydzovsky-Krajicek-Oliveira (2020) via a mixture of techniques from proof theory, complexity theory, and model theory. In contrast, by extracting computational information from proofs via a direct translation to LEARN-uniformity, we establish robust unprovability theorems that unify, simplify, and extend nearly all previous results. In addition, our lower bounds against randomized LEARN-uniformity yield unprovability results for theories augmented with the dual weak pigeonhole principle, such as APC^1 (Jerabek, 2007), which is known to formalize a large fragment of modern complexity theory.
Finally, we make precise potential limitations of theories of bounded arithmetic such as PV (Cook, 1975) and Jerabek's theory APC^1, by showing unconditionally that these theories cannot prove statements like "NP is not contained in BPP, and NP is contained in ioP/poly", i.e., that NP is uniformly "hard" but non-uniformly "easy" on infinitely many input lengths. In other words, if we live in such a complexity world, then this cannot be established feasibly.
We use the approach to give an explicit sequence of CNF formulas phi_n such that VNP \neq VP iff there are no polynomial-size IPS proofs for the formulas phi_n. This provides the first natural equivalence between proof complexity lower bounds and standard algebraic complexity lower bounds. Our proof of this fact uses the implication from IPS lower bounds to algebraic complexity lower bounds due to Grochow and Pitassi together with a diagonalization argument: the formulas phi_n themselves assert the non-existence of short IPS proofs for formulas encoding VNP \neq VP at a different input length. Our result also has meta-mathematical implications: it gives evidence for the difficulty of proving strong lower bounds for IPS within IPS.
For any strong enough propositional proof system R, we define the *iterated R-lower bound formulas*, which inductively assert the non-existence of short R proofs for formulas encoding the same statement at a different input length, and propose them as explicit hard candidates for the proof system R. We observe that this hypothesis holds for Resolution following recent results of Atserias and Muller and of Garlik, and give evidence in favour of it for other proof systems.
Joint work with Rahul Santhanam
It is a classical result that the theory CT^- with the full induction scheme for the formulae containing the truth predicate, called CT, is not conservative over PA. In fact, it proves so called global reflection principle which says that an arbitrary arithmetical sentence provable in PA is true (in the sense of the truth predicate). On the other hand, a theorem by Kotlarski, Krajewski, and Lachlan shows that CT^- is conservative.
In the presentation, we will discuss Tarski Boundary programme which tries to delineate the conservative and nonconservative extensions of the compositional truth theory CT^-. It turns out that many natural nonconservative truth axioms are exactly equivalent to Global Reflection which appears to be arguably the minimal "natural" truth theory which is not conservative over PA (though now we can systematically produce theories of truth whose strength is below Global Reflection).
On the other hand, Enayat and Visser invented a remarkably effective method of demonstrating that certain extensions of CT^- are in fact conservative which relies on a neat model-theoretic argument. It turns out that the uniformmity of this method allows in fact to obtain much more fine-grained understanding of the proof-theoretic properties of CT^-. In particular, one can show that proofs of arithmetical statements from the compositional truth axioms can be reduced to proofs in Peano Arithmetic with a PTIME algorithm.
This the first half of a two-part talk. It will be devoted mostly to the conservativeness of truth theories while the reducibility issues will be discussed mostly in the second part.
More specifically, suppose kappa is an uncountable regular cardinal (typically kappa can be taken to be the size of the reals). We will review a variety of compactness principles, such as the tree property, stationary reflection, Rado's conjecture, etc., which claim that if all parts of size < kappa of a given structure of size kappa have some property, so does the whole structure.
We will discuss basic models in which such principles hold, consistency strength of these principles, implications between the principles and other hypotheses (such as CH), and some consequences.
The technique known so far to prove depth lower bounds for Stabbing Planes is a generalization of that used for the Cutting Planes proof system. In this work we introduce two new approaches to prove length/depth lower bounds in Stabbing Planes: one relying on Sperner's Theorem which works for the Pigeonhole principle and Tseitin contradictions over the complete graph; a second proving the lower bound for Tseitin contradictions over a grid graph, which uses a result on essential coverings of the boolean cube by linear polynomials, which in turn relies on Alon's combinatorial Nullenstellensatz.
(Joint work with Stefan Dantchev, Nicola Galesi and Abdul Ghani.)
First, we demonstrate our approach for two-party communication and prove an exponential lower bound on the size of tree-like Res(+) refutations of the Perfect matching principle. Then we apply our approach to k-party communication complexity in the NOF model and obtain a lower bound on the randomized k-party communication complexity of Search(BPHP) w.r.t. to some natural partition of the variables, where BPHP is the bit pigeonhole principle. In particular, this lower bound implies that the bit pigeonhole requires exponential tree-like Th(k) proofs, where Th(k) is the semantic proof system operating with polynomial inequalities of degree at most k.
The talk is based on the joint work with Artur Riazanov that is available as ECCC report https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2020/184/.
This talk is based on two recent papers, joint with Joshua Blinkhorn and Meena Mahajan (LICS'20) and with Benjamin Boehm (ITCS'21).
Pavel Pudlak, Neil Thapen, Jan Krajíček
organizers