ABSTRACT
We study arithmetic proof systems Pc(F) and Pf(F) operating with arithmetic circuits and arithmetic formulas, respectively, that prove polynomial identities over a field F. We establish a series of structural theorems about these proof systems, the main one stating that Pc(F) proofs can be balanced: if a polynomial identity of syntactic degree d and depth k has a Pc(F) proof of size s, then it also has a Pc(F) proof of size poly(s,d) and depth O(k+log2 d + log d• log s). As a corollary, we obtain a quasipolynomial simulation of Pc(F) by Pf(F), for identities of a polynomial syntactic degree. Using these results we obtain the following: consider the identities: det(XY) = det(X)•det(Y) and det(Z)= z11 ••• znn, where X,Y and Z are n x n square matrices and Z is a triangular matrix with z11,..., znn on the diagonal (and det is the determinant polynomial). Then we can construct a polynomial-size arithmetic circuit det such that the above identities have Pc(F) proofs of polynomial-size and O(log2n) depth. Moreover, there exists an arithmetic formula det of size nO(log n) such that the above identities have Pf(F) proofs of size nO(log n).
This yields a solution to a basic open problem in propositional proof complexity, namely, whether there are polynomial-size NC2-Frege proofs for the determinant identities and the hard matrix identities, as considered, e.g. in Soltys and Cook (2004) (cf., Beame and Pitassi (1998). We show that matrix identities like AB=I -> BA=I (for matrices over the two element field) as well as basic properties of the determinant have polynomial-size NC2-Frege proofs, and quasipolynomial-size Frege proofs.
Supplemental Material
- Paul Beame and Toniann Pitassi. Propositional proof complexity: past, present, and future. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. EATCS, (65):66--89, 1998.Google Scholar
- Stuart J. Berkowitz. On computing the determinant in small parallel time using a small number of processors. Inf. Process. Lett., 18:147--150, 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maria Luisa Bonet, Samuel R. Buss, and Toniann Pitassi. Are there hard examples for Frege systems? In Feasible mathematics, II, volume 13 of Progr. Comput. Sci. Appl. Logic, pages 30--56. Birkhauser, 1995.Google Scholar
- Pavel Hrubes and Iddo Tzameret. The proof complexity of polynomial identities. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 41--51, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurent Hyafil. On the parallel evaluation of multivariate polynomials. SIAM J. Comput., 8(2):120--123, 1979.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emil Jerábek. Dual weak pigeonhole principle, Boolean complexity, and derandomization. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 129(1--3):1--37, 2004.Google Scholar
- Jan Krajícek. Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory, volume 60 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ran Raz and Amir Yehudayoff. Balancing syntactically multilinear arithmetic circuits. Comput. Complexity, 17:515--535, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob T. Schwartz. Fast probabilistic algorithms for verification of polynomial identities. Journal of the ACM, 27(4):701--717, 1980. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan Segerlind. The complexity of propositional proofs. Bull. Symbolic Logic, 13(4):417--481, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amir Shpilka and Amir Yehudayoff. Arithmetic circuits: A survey of recent results and open questions. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 5(3--4):207--388, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Soltys. The complexity of derivations of matrix identities. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 2001.Google Scholar
- Michael Soltys. Feasible proofs of matrix properties with csanky's algorithm. In 19th International Workshop on Comp. Sci. Log., pages 493--508, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Soltys and Stephen Cook. The proof complexity of linear algebra. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 130(1--3):277--323, 2004.Google Scholar
- Michael Soltys and Alasdair Urquhart. Matrix identities and the pigeonhole principle. Arch. Math. Logic, 43(3):351--357, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Volker Strassen. Vermeidung von divisionen. J. Reine Angew. Math., 264:182--202, 1973. (in German).Google Scholar
- Leslie G. Valiant. Completeness classes in algebra. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 249--261. ACM, 1979. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leslie G. Valiant, Sven Skyum, S. Berkowitz, and Charles Rackoff. Fast parallel computation of polynomials using few processors. SIAM J. Comput., 12(4):641--644, 1983.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard Zippel. Probabilistic algorithms for sparse polynomials. In Proceedings of the International Symposiumon on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, pages 216--226. Springer-Verlag, 1979. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Short proofs for the determinant identities
Recommendations
Semi-algebraic proofs, IPS lower bounds, and the τ-conjecture: can a natural number be negative?
STOC 2020: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of ComputingWe introduce the binary value principle which is a simple subset-sum instance expressing that a natural number written in binary cannot be negative, relating it to central problems in proof and algebraic complexity. We prove conditional superpolynomial ...
Non-commutative formulas and frege lower bounds: a new characterization of propositional proofs
CCC '15: Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Computational ComplexityDoes every Boolean tautology have a short propositional-calculus proof? Here, a propositional-calculus (i.e. Frege) proof is any proof starting from a set of axioms and deriving new Boolean formulas using a fixed set of sound derivation rules. ...
Short Proofs for the Determinant Identities
We study arithmetic proof systems ${\mathbb P}_c({\mathbb F})$ and $ {\mathbb P}_f({\mathbb F})$ operating with arithmetic circuits and arithmetic formulas, respectively, and that prove polynomial identities over a field ${\mathbb F}$. We establish a ...
Comments