skip to main content
10.1145/3406325.3451117acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Strong co-nondeterministic lower bounds for NP cannot be proved feasibly

Published:15 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

We show unconditionally that Cook’s theory PV formalizing poly-time reasoning cannot prove, for any non-deterministic poly-time machine M defining a language L(M), that L(M) is inapproximable by co-nondeterministic circuits of sub-exponential size. In fact, our unprovability result holds also for a theory which supports a fragment of Jeřábek’s theory of approximate counting APC1. We also show similar unconditional unprovability results for the conjecture of Rudich about the existence of super-bits.

References

  1. Alekhnovich M., Ben-Sasson E., Razborov A.A., Wigderson A. ; Pseudorandom generators in propositional proof complexity, SIAM Journal on Computing, 34 ( 1 ): 67-88, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Aaronson, S., Wigderson, A. ; Algebrization: A New Barrier in Complexity Theory, Transactions in Computation Theory, 2 : 1-54, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker T., Gill J., Solovay R. ; Relativizations of the P = NP Question, SIAM Journal on Computing, 4 ( 4 ), pp. 431-442, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss S. ; Bounded Arithmetic, Bibliopolis, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss S., Kołodziejczyk L., Thapen N. ; Fragments of Approximate Counting, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49 : 496-525, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bydžovský J., Müller M. ; Polynomial time ultrapowers and the consistency of circuit lower bounds, Arch. Math. Log., 59 ( 1 ): 127-147, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bydžovský J., Krajíček J., Oliveira I.C. ; Consistency of circuit lower bounds with bounded theories, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 16 ( 2 :12), 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Carmosino M., Impagliazzo R., Kabanets V., Kolokolova A. ; Learning algorithms from natural proofs, Conference on Computational Complexity, 10 : 1-24, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen L., Hirahara S., Oliveira I.C., Pich J., Rajgopal N., Santhanam R. ; Beyond natural proofs: hardness magnification and locality, Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, 70 : 1-48, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobham A. ; The intrinsic computational dificulty of functions, International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, North Holland, pp. 24-30, 1965.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook S.A. ; Feasibly constructive proofs and the propositional calculus, Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 83-97, 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook S., Krajíček J.; Consequences of the Provability of NP ⊆ P/poly, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72 ( 4 ): 1353-1371, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook S.A., Pitassi T. ; A feasibly constructive lower bound for Resolution proofs, Information Processing Letters, 34 ( 2 ): 81-85, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook S.A., Thapen N.; The strength of replacement in weak arithmetic, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 7 ( 4 ): 749-764, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dai Tri Man Le ; Bounded arithmetic and formalizing probabilistic proofs, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Filmus Y., Pitassi T., Santhanam R. ; Exponential lower bounds for AC0-Frege imply superpolynomial Frege lower bounds, International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 6755 : 618-629, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Healy A., Vadhan S., Viola E. ; Using nondeterminism to amplify hardness, Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 192-201, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Huang H. ; Induced Subgraphs of Hypercubes and a Proof of the Sensitivity Conjecture, Arxiv preprint, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeřábek E. ; Dual weak pigeonhole principle, Boolean complexity and derandomization, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 129 : 1-37, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeřábek E. ; Weak pigeonhole principle and randomized computation, Ph.D. thesis, Charles University in Prague, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeřábek E. ; Approximate counting in bounded arithmetic, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72 : 959-993, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Krajíček J.; Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Krajíček J. ; On the weak pigeonhole principle, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 170 ( 1-3 ): 123-140, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Krajíček J.; Dual weak pigeonhole principle, pseudor-surjective functions, and provability of circuit lower bounds, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 69 ( 1 ): 265-286, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Krajíček J.; Implicit proofs, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 69 ( 2 ): 387-397, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Krajíček J. ; On the proof complexity of the Nisan-Wigderson generator based on a hard NP ∩ coNP function, Journal of Mathematical Logic, 11 ( 1 ): 11-27, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Krajíček J. ; On the computational complexity of finding hard tautologies, Bulleting of the London Mathematical Society, 46 ( 1 ): 111-125, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Krajíček J. ; Proof complexity, Cambridge University Press, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Krajíček J.; A limitation on the KPT interpolation, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 16 ( 3 :9), 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Krajíček J., Oliveira I.C. ; Unprovability of circuit upper bounds in Cook's theory PV1, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 13 ( 1 ), 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Krajíček J., Pudlák P.; Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures for S12 and EF, Information and Computation, 140 ( 1 ): 82-94, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Krajíček J., Pudlák P., Takeuti G. ; Bounded arithmetic and the polynomial hierarchy, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 52 : 143-153, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lipton R.J., Young N.E. ; Simple strategies for large zero-sum games with applications to complexity theory, Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 734-740, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Müller M., Pich J.; Feasibly constructive proofs of succinct weak circuit lower bounds, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 171 ( 2 ), 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Nisan N., Wigderson A. ; Hardness vs. randomness, J. Comput. Systems Sci., 49 : 149-167, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Paris J., Wilkie A. ; Counting problems in bounded arithmetic, Methods in Mathematical Logic, 1130 : 317-340, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Pich J. ; Nisan-Wigderson generators in proof systems with forms of interpolation, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 57 ( 4 ), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Pich J.; Circuit lower bounds in bounded arithmetics, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 166 ( 1 ): 29-45, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Pich J. ; Logical Strength of Complexity Theory and a formalization of the PCP theorem in bounded arithmetic, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 11 ( 2 ), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Pich J., Santhanam R. ; Why are proof complexity lower bounds hard? Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 1305-1324, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Pudlák P. ; Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane proofs and Monotone computations; J. of Symb. Logic, 62 ( 3 ): 981-998, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Razborov A.A. ; Bounded Arithmetic and Lower Bounds in Boolean Complexity, Feasible Mathematics II, pp. 344-386, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Razborov A.A. ; Unprovability of lower bounds on circuit size in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic, Izvestiya of the Russian Academy of Science, 59 : 201-224, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Razborov A.A. ; Pseudorandom generators hard for-DNF resolution and polynomial calculus, Annals of Mathematics, 181 ( 2 ): 415-472, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Razborov A.A., Rudich S.; Natural proofs, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 55 ( 1 ): 24-35, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudich S. ; Super-bits, Demi-bits, and NP/qpoly-natural Proofs, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 55 : 204-213, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Thapen N.; A model-theoretic characterization of the weak pigeonhole principle, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 118 ( 1-2 ): 175-195, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Thapen N.; The weak pigeonhole principle in models of bounded arithmetic, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Strong co-nondeterministic lower bounds for NP cannot be proved feasibly

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      STOC 2021: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing
      June 2021
      1797 pages
      ISBN:9781450380539
      DOI:10.1145/3406325

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 June 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

      Upcoming Conference

      STOC '24
      56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
      June 24 - 28, 2024
      Vancouver , BC , Canada

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader