Aehlig, K. and Beckmann, A., A remark on the induction needed to prove the Ramsey principle, unpublished manuscript (2006). p. 292Google Scholar

Aisenberg, J., Bonet, M. L., Buss, S. R., Craciun, A. and Istrate, G., Short proofs of the Kneser–Lovász coloring principle, in: Proc. 42nd International Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9135 (2015), 44–55. p. 230Google Scholar

Aisenberg, J., Bonet, M. L. and Buss, S. R., Quasipolynomial size Frege proofs of Frankl’s theorem on the trace of sets, J. Symbolic Logic 81 (2)(2016), 1–24. p. 231Google Scholar

Ajtai, M., -formulas on finite structures, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic 24 (1983), 1–48. pp. 29, 183, 449, 454CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ajtai, M., The complexity of the pigeonhole principle, in: Proc. IEEE 29th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (1988), 346–355. pp. 3, 163, 165, 179, 183, 306, 307, 318, 327, 334, 454Google Scholar

Ajtai, M., Parity and the pigeonhole principle, in: Feasible Mathematics, eds. Buss, S. R. and Scott, P. J., Birkhauser (1990), 1–24. pp. 230, 335Google Scholar

Ajtai, M., The independence of the modulo p counting principles, in: Proc. 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM Press (1994), 402–411. pp. 230, 326, 335, 349Google Scholar

Ajtai, M., Symmetric systems of linear equations modulo p, in: Proc. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR94–015 (1994). p. 349Google Scholar

Ajtai, M., Generalizations of the compactness theorem and Gödel’s completeness theorem for nonstandard finite structures, in: Proc. 4th International Conf. on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation (2007), 13–33. p. 454Google Scholar

Ajtai, M., A generalization of Gödel’s completeness theorem for nonstandard finite structures, unpublished manuscript (2011). p. 454Google Scholar

Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A. A., and Wigderson, A., Space complexity in propositional calculus, SIAM J. Computing, 31 (4)(2002), 1184–1211. p. 113Google Scholar

Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A. A., and Wigderson, A., Pseudorandom generators in propositional proof complexity, SIAM J. Computing, 34 (1) (2004), 67–88. pp. 157, 278, 292, 350, 437, 438Google Scholar

Alekhnovich, M., Hirsch, E. A. and Itsykson, D., Exponential lower bounds for the running time of DPLL algorithms on satisfiable formulas, J. Automated Reasoning, 35 (1–3) (2005), 51–72. p. 295Google Scholar

Alekhnovich, M., Johannsen, J., Pitassi, T. and Urquhart, A., An exponential separation between regular and general resolution, in: Proc. 34th Annual ACM Symp on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2002), 448–456. p. 295Google Scholar

Alekhnovich, M. and Razborov, A. A., Lower bound for polynomial calculus: non-binomial case, Proc. the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 242(2003), 18–35. p. 350Google Scholar

Alekhnovich, M. and Razborov, A. A., Resolution is not automatizable unless WP is tractable, SIAM J. Computing, 38 (4) (2008), 1347–1363. p. 470CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexi, W. B., Chor, B., Goldreich, O. and Schnorr, C. P., RSA and Rabin functions: certain parts are as hard as the whole, SIAM J. Computing, 17(1988), 194–209. p. 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alon, N. and Boppana, R., The monotone circuit complexity of Boolean functions, Combinatorica, 7 (1) (1987), 1–22. pp. 38, 288, 382Google Scholar

Alon, N. and Spencer, J. H., The Probabilistic Method, 3rd edn, John Wiley and Sons, (2011). p. 351Google Scholar

Andreev, A. E., On a method for obtaining lower bounds for the complexity of individual monotone functions, Sov. Math. Dokl., 31 (1985), 530–534. p. 38Google Scholar

Arai, N., Relative efficiency of propositional proof systems: Resolution and cut-free LK, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 104 (2000), 3–16. p. 112Google Scholar

Arai, N., Pitassi, T. and Urquhart, A., The complexity of analytic tableaux, in: Proc. ACM Symp. on the Theory of Computing (STOC) (2001), 356–363. p. 112Google Scholar

Arai, T., A bounded arithmetic AID for Frege systems, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 103 (2000), 155–199. p. 209Google Scholar

Artin, E., Uber die zerlegung definiter Funktionen in Quadrate, in: Abhandlungen aus dem mathematischen Seminar der Universitat Hamburg, 5(1927), 100–115. Springer. p. 132Google Scholar

Asser, G., Das Reprasentenproblem in Pradikatenkalkul der ersten Stufe mit Identitat, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 1 (1955), 252–263. p. 2Google Scholar

Atserias, A., The proof-search problem between bounded-width resolution and bounded-degree semi-algebraic proofs, in: Proc. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2013), eds. Jarvisalo, M. and Van Gelder, A., 7962, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2013), 1–17. p. 470Google Scholar

Atserias, A., A note on semi-algebraic proofs and gaussian elimination over prime fields, unpublished preprint (2015). pp. 348, 351Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Bonacina, I., de Rezende, S. F., Lauria, M., Nordström, J. and Razborov, A. A., Clique is hard on average for regular resolution, to appear in: Proc. 50th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2018). p. 293Google Scholar

Atserias, A. and Bonet, M. L., On the automatizability of resolution and related propositional proof systems, Information and Computation, 189 (2)(2004), 182–201. pp. 467, 471Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Bonet, M. L. and Levy, J., On Chvátal Rank and Cutting Planes Proofs, in: Proc. Electronic Colloq. on Computational Complexity(ECCC), TR03–041 (2003). p. 352Google Scholar

Atserias, A. and Dalmau, V., A combinatorial characterization of resolution width, J. Computer and System Sciences, 74 (3) (2008), 323–334. pp. 105, 113Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Fichte, J. K., and Thurley, M., Clause-learning algorithms with many restarts and bounded-width resolution, J. Artificial Intelligence Research, 40 (2011), 353–373. p. 295Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Galesi, N. and Gavaldá, R., Monotone proofs of the pigeon hole principle, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 47 (4) (2001), 461–474. p. 158Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Galesi, N. and Pudlák, P., Monotone simulations of nonmonotone proofs, J. Computer and System Sciences, 65 (2002), 626–638. pp. 146, 158Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Kolaitis, P. and Vardi, M. Y., Constraint propagation as a proof system, in: Proc. 10th International Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP), 3258, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2004), 77–91. pp. 147, 159Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Lauria, M. and Nordström, J., Narrow proofs may be maximally long, ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 17 (2016), 19:1–19:30. pp. 112, 294Google Scholar

Atserias, A. and Maneva, E., Mean-payoff games and propositional proofs, Information and Computation, 209 (4) (2011), 664–691. p. 470Google Scholar

Atserias, A. and Maneva, E., Sherali–Adams relaxations and indistinguishability in counting logics, SIAM J. Computing, 42 (1) (2013), 112–137. pp. 133, 455Google Scholar

Atserias, A. and Müller, M., Partially definable forcing and bounded arithmetic, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 54 (1–2) (2015), 1–33. p. 454Google Scholar

Atserias, A., Müller, M. and Oliva, S., Lower bounds for DNF-refutations of a relativized weak pigeonhole principle, J. Symbolic Logic, 80 (2)(2015), 450–476. p. 292Google Scholar

Atserias, A. and Ochremiak, J., Definable ellipsoid method, sums-of-squares proofs, and the isomorphism problem, to appear in: Proc. 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), July 2018. pp. 351, 455Google Scholar

Avigad, J., Plausibly hard combinatorial tautologies, in: Proof Complexity and Feasible Arithmetics, eds Buss, S. R. and Beame, P., American Mathematical Society (1997), 1–12. pp. 63, 436Google Scholar

Babai, L., Gál, A., Kollár, J., Rónyai, L., Szabó, T. and Wigderson, A., Extremal bipartite graphs and superpolynomial lower bounds for monotone span programs, in: Proc. 28th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1996), 603–611. p. 393Google Scholar

Baker, T., Gill, J. and Solovay, R., Relativizations of the P =? N P question, SIAM J. Comput., 4 (1975), 431–442. p. 463Google Scholar

Barak, B., Brandao, F. G. S. L., Harrow, A. W., Kelner, J. A., Steurer, D. and Zhou, Y., Hypercontractivity, sum-of-squares proofs, and their applications, in: Proc. 28th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1996), 307–326. p. 351Google Scholar

Barak, B., Kelner, J. A., Steurer, D., Rounding sum of squares relaxations, in: Proc. 46th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2014), 31–40. p. 351Google Scholar

Barak, B. and Steurer, D., Sum-of-squares proofs and the quest toward optimal algorithms, in: Proc. ICM Conf. (Seul) (2014). pp. 133, 351Google Scholar

Beame, P., Proof complexity, in: Computational Complexity Theory, eds. Rudich, S. and Wigderson, A., AMS, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., 10(2004), 199–246. p. 6Google Scholar

Beame, P., Beck, C. and Impagliazzo, R., Time–space tradeoffs in resolution: super-polynomial lower bounds for superlinear space, in: Proc. 44th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2012), 212–232. p. 294Google Scholar

Beame, P., Cook, S. A., Edmonds, J., Impagliazzo, R. and Pitassi, T., The relative complexity of NP search problems, J. Computer Systems Sciences, 57 (1998), 3–19. pp. 426, 436Google Scholar

Beame, P., Culberson, J., Mitchell, D. and Moore, C., The resolution complexity of random graph k-colorability, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 153(2005), 25–47. p. 293Google Scholar

Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., Krajíček, J., Pitassi, T. and Pudlák, P., Lower bounds on Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz and propositional proofs, Proc. London Mathematical Society, 73 (3) (1996), 1–26. pp. 131, 230, 326, 335, 338, 349, 350Google Scholar

Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., Krajíček, J., Pitassi, T., Pudlák, P. and Woods, A., Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle, in: Proc. Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1992), 200–220. p. 334Google Scholar

Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., Pitassi, T. and Segerlind, N., Formula Caching in DPLL, ACM Trans. on Computation Theory, 1 (3) (2010), 9:1–933. p. 295Google Scholar

Beame, P., Kautz, H. and Sabharwal, A., On the power of clause learning, in: Proc. 18th International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) (2003), 94–99. p. 295Google Scholar

Beame, P., and Pitassi, T., Exponential separation between the matching principles and the pigeonhole principle, in: Proc. 8th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS) (1993), 308–319. p. 335Google Scholar

Beame, P. and Pitassi, T., Simplified and improved resolution lower bounds, in: Proc. 37th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science(FOCS) (1996), 274–282. pp. 112, 470Google Scholar

Beame, P. and Pitassi, T., Propositional proof complexity: past, present, and future, in: Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science: Entering the 21st Century, eds. Paun, G., Rozenberg, G. and Salomaa, A., World Scientific (2001), 42–70. pp. 6, 382Google Scholar

Beame, P., Pitassi, T. and Segerlind, N., Lower bounds for Lovász–Schrijver systems and beyond follow from multiparty communication complexity, in: Automata, Languages, and Programming: Proc. 32nd International Colloq. (2005), 1176–1188. pp. 395, 396, 407Google Scholar

Beckmann, A. and Buss, S. R., Improved witnessing and local improvement principles for second-order bounded arithmetic, ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 15 (1) (2014), article 2. p. 436Google Scholar

Beckmann, A. and Buss, S. R., The NP search problems of Frege and Extended Frege proofs, ACM Trans. on Computational Logic, 18 (2) (2017), Article 11. p. 436Google Scholar

Beckmann, A., Pudlák, P. and Thapen, N., Parity games and propositional proofs, ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 15 (2) (2014), article 17. pp. 210, 470Google Scholar

Bellantoni, S., Pitassi, T. and Urquhart, A., Approximation and small depth Frege proofs, SIAM J. Computing, 21 (6) (1992), 1161–1179. p. 334Google Scholar

Ben-David, S. and Gringauze, A., On the existence of propositional proof systems and oracle-relativized propositional logic, in: Proc. Electronic Colloq. on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR98–021 (1998). pp. 91, 468Google Scholar

Bennett, J. H., On spectra, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University (1962). pp. 2, 182, 183, 196, 257Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E., Expansion in proof complexity, Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (2001). pp. 292, 471Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E., Hard examples for the bounded depth Frege proof system, Computational Complexity, 11 (3-4) (2002), 109–136. pp. 335, 437CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E. and Harsha, P., Lower bounds for bounded depth Frege proofs via Buss–Pudlák games, ACM Trans. on Computational Logic, 11 (3) (2010), 1–17. p. 335Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E. and Impagliazzo, R., Random CNF’s are hard for the polynomial calculus, Computational Complexity, 19 (4) (2010), 501–519. pp. 131, 350, 434Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E., Impagliazzo, R. and Wigderson, A., Near-optimal separation of general and tree-like resolution, Combinatorica, 24 (4) (2004), 585–604. p. 291Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E. and Nordström, J., Short proofs may be spacious: an optimal separation of space and length in resolution, in: Proc. 49th Annual IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (2008), 709–718. p. 294Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E. and Nordström, J., Understanding space in proof complexity: separations and trade-offs via substitutions, in: Proc. 2nd Symp. on Innovations in Computer Science (ICS ‘11) (2011), 401–416. p. 290Google Scholar

Ben-Sasson, E. and Wigderson, A., Short proofs are narrow – resolution made simple, in: Proc. 31st ACM Symp. on Theory of Computation(STOC) (1999), 517–526. pp. 100, 101, 112, 277, 281, 282, 292, 293Google Scholar

Beth, E. W., On Padoa’s method in the theory of definition, Indag. Math., 15 (1953), 330–339. p. 80Google Scholar

Beth, E. W., The Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland (1959). p. 80Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O., Bonacina, I. and Chew, L., Lower bounds: from circuits to QBF proof systems, in: Proc. Conf. on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) (2016), 249–260. p. 92Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O., Galesi, N. and Lauria, M., A characterization of tree-like resolution size, Information Processing Letters, 113 (18) (2013), 666–671. p. 291Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O., Köbler, J. and Messner, J., Nondeterministic functions and the existence of optimal proof systems, Theoretical Computer Science, 410 (38–40) (2009), 3839–3855. p. 468Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O., Köbler, J. and Müller, S., Proof systems that take advice, Information and Computation, 209 (3) (2011), 320–332. p. 471Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O. and Kullmann, O., Unified characterisations of resolution hardness measures, in: Proc. 17th International Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8561 (2014), 170–187. pp. 112, 114, 293Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O. and Pich, J., Understanding Gentzen and Frege systems for QBF, in: Proc. Conf. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS) (2016), 146–155. p. 92Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O. and Sadowski, Z., Characterizing the existence of optimal proof systems and complete sets for promise classes, in: Proc. Conf on Computer Science – Theory and Applications (CSR), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5675 (2009), 47–58. p. 469Google Scholar

Beyersdorff, O. and Sadowski, Z., Do there exist complete sets for promise classes? Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 57 (6) (2011), 535–550. p. 469Google Scholar

Birget, J.-C., Reductions and functors from problems to word problems, Theoretical Computer Science, 237 (2000), 81–104. p. 160Google Scholar

Birget, J.-C., Ol’shanskii, A. Yu., Rips, E. and Sapir, M. V., Isoperimetric functions of groups and computational complexity of the word problem, Ann. Mathematics, 156 (2) (2002), 467–518. p. 153Google Scholar

Blake, A., Canonical expressions in boolean algebra, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (1937). p. 112Google Scholar

Bochnak, J., Coste, M. and Roy, M.-F., Real Algebraic Geometry, Springer (1999). p. 132Google Scholar

Bonacina, I., Total space in resolution is at least width squared, in: Proc. 43rd International Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming(ICALP) 55 (2016), 56:1–56:13. pp. 113, 294Google Scholar

Bonacina, I., Galesi, N. and Thapen, N., Total space in resolution, SIAM J. on Computing, 45 (5) (2016), 1894–1909. p. 294Google Scholar

Bonacina, I. and Talebanfard, N., Strong ETH and resolution via games and the multiplicity of strategies, Algorithmica (2016), 1–13. p. 295Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L. and Buss, S. R., On the deduction rule and the number of proof lines, in: Proc. 6th Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science(LICS 91), IEEE Computer Society Press (1991), 286–297. p. 62Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L. and Buss, S. R., The deduction rule and linear and near-linear proof simulations, J. Symbolic Logic, 58 (1993), 688–709. p. 62Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L., Domingo, C., Gavaldá, R., Maciel, A. and Pitassi, T., Non-automatizability of bounded-depth Frege proofs, Computational Complexity, 13 (2004), 47–68. p. 405Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L., Esteban, J. L., Galesi, N. and Johannsen, J., On the relative complexity of resolution refinements and cutting planes proof systems, SIAM J. Computing, 30 (5) (2000), 1462–1484. p. 406Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L., Pitassi, T. and Raz, R., Lower bounds for cutting planes proofs with small coefficients, in: Proc. 27th Annual ACM Symp. on the Theory of Computing (STOC) (1995), 575–584. pp. 157, 381, 382Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L., Pitassi, T. and Raz, R., Lower bounds for cutting planes proofs with small coefficients, J. Symbolic Logic, 62 (1997), 708–728. pp. 157, 381Google Scholar

Bonet, M. L., Pitassi, T., and Raz, R., On interpolation and automatization for Frege proof systems, SIAM J. Computing, 29 (6) (2000), 1939–1967. pp. 365, 382, 404, 410Google Scholar

Boone, W., The word problem, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 44 (1958), 265–269. p. 153Google Scholar

Boone, W., The word problem, Ann. Mathematics, 70 (1959), 207–265. p. 153Google Scholar

Boole, G., The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, Barclay and Macmillan (1847). p. 116Google Scholar

Boppana, R. and Sipser, M., The complexity of finite functions, in: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier Science Publishers (1991), 759–804. p. 38Google Scholar

Bridson, M., The geometry of the word problem, in: Invitations to Geometry and Topology, Oxford University Press (2002). p. 160Google Scholar

Bryant, R. E., Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation, IEEE Trans. on Computing, C- 35 (1986), 677–691. p. 146Google Scholar

Bryant, R. E., Syntactic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary decision diagrams, ACM Computing Surveys, 2493 (1992), 293–318. p. 146Google Scholar

Buresh-Oppenheim, J., Galesi, N., Hoory, S., Magen, A. and Pitassi, T., Rank bounds and integrality gaps for cutting planes procedures, Theory of Computing, 2 (1) (2006), 65–90. p. 352Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Bounded Arithmetic. Bibliopolis (1986). pp. 79, 164, 166, 183, 192, 193, 196, 236, 436, 478Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., The Boolean formula value problem is in ALOGTIME, in: Proc. 19th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1987), 123–131. p. 209Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Polynomial size proofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle, J. Symbolic Logic, 52 (1987), 916–927. pp. 53, 183, 213, 215, 230Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Axiomatizations and conservation results for fragments of bounded arithmetic, in: Logic and Computation, Contemporary Mathematics, 106 (1990), 57–84. p. 193Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Relating the bounded arithmetic and polynomial-time hierarchies, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 75 (1995), 67–77. p. 183Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., On Gödel’s theorems on lengths of proofs II: lower bounds for recognizing k symbol provability, in: Feasible Mathematics II, eds. Clote, P. and Remmel, J., Birkhauser (1995), 57–90. p. 2Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Some remarks on the lengths of propositional proofs, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 34 (1995) 377–394. p. 62Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Bounded arithmetic and propositional proof complexity, in: Logic of Computation, ed. Schwichtenberg, H., Springer (1997), 67–122. pp. 183, 196Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Lower bounds on Nullstellensatz proofs via designs, in: Proof Complexity and Feasible Arithmetics, eds. Buss, S. and Beame, P., American Mathematical Society (1998), 59–71. p. 349Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., An Introduction to Proof Theory, in: Handbook of Proof Theory, ed. Buss, S. R., Elsevier (1998), 1–78. p. 6Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., First-order proof theory of arithmetic, in: Handbook of Proof Theory, ed. Buss, S. R., Elsevier (1998), 79–147. pp. 6, 79, 196Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Propositional proof complexity: an introduction, in: Computational Logic, eds. Berger, U. and Schwichtenberg, H., Springer (1999), 127–178. p. 6Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Bounded arithmetic, proof complexity and two papers of Parikh, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 96 (1999), 43–55. p. 182Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Bounded arithmetic and constant depth Frege proofs, in: Complexity of Computations and Proofs, ed. Krajíček, J., Quaderni di Matematica, 13 (2004), 153–174. pp. 183, 196Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Towards NP-P via proof complexity and search, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 163 (7) (2012), 906–917. p. 6Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. and Clote, P., Cutting planes, connectivity, and threshold logic, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 3591 (1996), 33–62. pp. 124, 132, 209, 231Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Grigoriev, D., Impagliazzo, R. and Pitassi, T., Linear gaps between degrees for the polynomial calculus modulo distinct primes, in: Proc. 31st Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1999), 547–556. pp. 131, 350, 351Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Hoffmann, J. and Johannsen, J., Resolution trees with lemmas – resolution refinements that characterize DLL-algorithms with clause learning, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 4 (2008), 4:13. p. 295Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Impagliazzo, R., Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P., Razborov, A. A. and Sgall, J., Proof complexity in algebraic systems and bounded depth Frege systems with modular counting, Computational Complexity, 6 (3) (1996/1997), 256–298. pp. 131, 159, 230, 326, 333, 335, 336, 338, 350Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. and Johannsen, J., On linear resolution, J. Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 10 (2016), 23–35. p. 291Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Kabanets, V., Kolokolova, A. and Koucký, M., Expanders in VNC¹, in: Proc. Conf. Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2017), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), 67 (2017). pp. 146, 158, 479Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. and Kolodziejczyk, L. A., Small stone in pool, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 10 (2) (2014), paper 16. p. 295Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Kolodziejczyk, L. and Thapen, N., Fragments of approximate counting, J. Symbolic Logic, 79 (2) (2014), 496–525. pp. 160, 209, 293Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Kolodziejczyk, L. and Zdanowski, K., Collapsing modular counting in bounded arithmetic and constant depth propositional proofs, Trans. AMS, 367 (2015), 7517–7563. pp. 334, 479Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. and Krajíček, J., An application of boolean complexity to separation problems in bounded arithmetic, Proc. London Mathematical Society, 69 (3) (1994), 1–21. pp. 304, 305, 435Google Scholar

Buss, S. R., Krajíček, J., and Takeuti, G., On provably total functions in bounded arithmetic theories and in: Arithmetic Proof Theory and Computational Complexity, eds. Clote, P. and Krajíček, J. (1993), 116–161, Oxford Press.Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. and Pudlák, P., How to lie without being (easily) convicted and the lengths of proofs in propositional calculus, in: Computer Science Logic 94, eds. Pacholski, and Tiuryn, , Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 933 (1995), 151–162. pp. 62, 335Google Scholar

Buss, S. R. and Turan, G., Resolution proofs of generalized pigeonhole principles, Theoretical Computer Science, 62 (3) (1988), 311–317. p. 292Google Scholar

Cavagnetto, S., Propositional proof complexity and rewriting, Ph.D. thesis, Charles University in Prague (2008). p. 160Google Scholar

Chen, Y. and Flum, J., A logic for PTIME and a parameterized halting problem, in: Fields of Logic and Computation, eds. Blass, A., Dershowitz, N. and Reisig, W., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6300 (2010), 251–276. p. 471Google Scholar

Chen, Y. and Flum, J., On p-optimal proof systems and logics for PTIME, in: Proc. ICALP: Automata, Languages and Programming, eds. Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F. and Spirakis, P. G., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6199 (2010), 321–332. p. 471Google Scholar

Chang, C. L. and Lee, R. C.-T., Symbolic Logical and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press (1973). p. 62Google Scholar

Chiari, M. and Krajíček, J., Witnessing functions in bounded arithmetic and search problems, J. Symbolic Logic, 63 (3) (1998), 1095–1115. pp. 293, 305, 350, 436, 437Google Scholar

Chiari, M. and Krajíček, J., Lifting independence results in bounded arithmetic, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 38 (2) (1999), 123–138. pp. 303, 305, 436Google Scholar

Chvátal, V., Edmonds polytopes and a hierarchy of combinatorial problems, Discrete Mathematics, 4 (1973), 305–337. pp. 115, 121, 130Google Scholar

Chvátal, V. and E. Szemerédi, , Many hard examples for resolution, J. ACM, 35 (4) (1988), 759–768. pp. 282, 434Google Scholar

Clegg, M., Edmonds, J. and Impagliazzo, R., Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability, in: Proc. 28th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1996), 174–183. pp. 112, 131, 350, 406Google Scholar

Church, A., A note on the Entscheidungsproblem, J. Symbolic Logic, 1 (1936), 40–41. pp. 1, 32Google Scholar

Clote, P. and Krajíček, J., eds., Arithmetic Proof Theory and Computational Complexity, Oxford University Press (1993). p. 2Google Scholar

Clote, P. and Kranakis, E., Boolean Functions and Models of Computation, Springer (2002). pp. 6, 79, 112, 132, 157, 209, 231, 350, 406Google Scholar

Cobham, A., The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions, in: Proc. Conf. on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, ed. Y. Bar-Hillel (1965), 24–30. pp. 233, 234, 235, 257Google Scholar

Cook, S. A., The complexity of theorem proving procedures, in: Proc. 3rd Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1971), 151–158. pp. 26, 37Google Scholar

Cook, S. A., A hierarchy for nondeterministic time complexity, J. Computational Systems Science, 7 (4) (1973), 343–353. p. 25Google Scholar

Cook, S. A., Feasibly constructive proofs and the propositional calculus, in: Proc. 7th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1975), 83–97. pp. 3, 163, 165, 233, 235, 244, 258, 435, 468Google Scholar

Cook, S. A., Relativized propositional calculus, preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1203. 2168 (2012). p. 91Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Fontes, L., Formal theories for linear algebra, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 8 (2012), 1–31. p. 232Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Haken, A., An exponential lower bound for the size of monotone real circuits, J. Computer and System Science, 58 (2) (1999), 326–335. p. 387Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Krajíček, J., Consequences of the provability of NP ⊇ P/poly, J. Symbolic Logic, 72 (4) (2007), 1353–1371. pp. 157, 160, 471, 479Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Morioka, T., Quantified propositional calculus and a second-order theory for NC¹, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 44 (6) (2005), 711–749. p. 91Google Scholar

Cook, S. A., and Nguyen, P., Logical Foundations of Proof Complexity, Cambridge University Press (2009). pp. 6, 79, 87, 183, 196, 209, 210, 230, 259, 404, 436, 478Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Reckhow, R. A., The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, J. Symbolic Logic, 44 (1) (1979), 36–50. pp. 33, 34, 38, 39, 62, 79, 114, 183, 231Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Soltys, M., Boolean programs and quantified propositional proof systems, Bull. Logic Section, University of Lodz, 28 (3) (1999), 119–129. pp. 85, 86, 90, 92Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Soltys, M., The proof complexity of linear algebra, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 130 (2004), 277–323. pp. 232, 434Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Thapen, N., The strength of replacement in weak arithmetic, ACM Trans. on Computational Logic, 7 (4) (2006). p. 259Google Scholar

Cook, S. A. and Tzameret, I., Uniform, integral and efficient proofs for the determinant identities, in: Logic in Computer Science (LICS), Proc. 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symp., 32 (2017), 1–12. p. 435Google Scholar

Cook, W., Coullard, C. R. and Turán, G., On the complexity of cutting plane proofs, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 18 (1987), 25–38. p. 132Google Scholar

Cox, D., Little, J. and O’Shea, D., Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms, Springer (2007). p. 131Google Scholar

Craig, W., Three uses of the Herbrand–Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory, J. Symbolic Logic, 22 (3) (1957), 269–285. pp. 14, 37Google Scholar

Dantchev, S. and Riis, S., On relativisation and complexity gap for resolution-based proof systems, in: Proc. 12th Annual Conf. of the EACSL Computer Science Logic, Springer (2003). pp. 270, 291Google Scholar

Dash, S., Exponential lower bounds on the lengths of some classes of branch-and-cut proofs, Mathematics of Operations Research, 30 (3) (2005), 678–700. p. 407Google Scholar

Davis, M., Logemann, G. and Loveland, D., A machine program for theorem proving, Commun. ACM, 5 (7) (1962), 394–397. pp. 96, 112Google Scholar

Davis, M., Matiyasevich, Y. and Robinson, J., Hilbert’s tenth problem: diophantine equations: positive aspects of a negative solution, in: Mathematical Developments Arising from Hilbert Problems, Proc. Symp. in Pure Mathematics, ed. F. E. Browder (1976), 323–378. p. 38Google Scholar

Davis, M. and Putnam, H., A computing procedure for quantification theory, J. ACM, 7 (3) (1960), 210–215. pp. 96, 112Google Scholar

Diffie, W. and Hellman, M., New directions in cryptography, IEEE Trans. Information Theory, 22 (1976), 423–439. p. 404Google Scholar

Dimitracopoulos, C. and Paris, J., Truth definitions for Δ₀ formulae, in: Logic and Algorithmic, Monographie No. 30 de L’Enseignement Mathematique, (1982), 318–329. p. 183Google Scholar

Dimitracopoulos, C. and Paris, J., The pigeonhole principle and fragments of arithmetic, Zeitschrift f. Mathematikal Logik u. Grundlagen d. Mathematik, 32 (1986), 73–80. p. 182Google Scholar

Dowd, M., Propositional representations of arithmetic proofs, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (1979). pp. 62, 231, 258Google Scholar

Edmonds, J., Paths, trees, and flowers, Canad. J. Math., 17 (1965), 449–467. p. 37Google Scholar

Enderton, H. B., A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Academic Press (2001). p. 37Google Scholar

Erdös, P., Some remarks on the theory of graphs, Bull. AMS, 53 (1947), 292–294. pp. 275, 320Google Scholar

Esteban, J. L. and Toran, J., Space bounds for resolution, in: Proc. 16th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS) (1999), 551–561. pp. 113, 157Google Scholar

Esteban, J. L. and Toran, J., A combinatorial characterization of treelike resolution space, Information Processes Letters, 87 (6) (2003), 295–300. p. 113Google Scholar

Fagin, R., Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets, in: Complexity of Computation, ed. R. Karp, SIAM–AMS Proc., 7 (1974), 27–41. p. 21Google Scholar

Feige, U., Kim, J. H. and Ofek, E., Witnesses for nonsatisfiability of dense random 3CNF formulas, in: Proc. 47th IEEE Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (2006), 497–508. pp. 160, 471Google Scholar

Fernandes, A. and Ferreira, F., Groundwork for weak analysis, J. Symbolic Logic, 67 (2002), 557–578. p. 232Google Scholar

Fernandes, A., Ferreira, F. and Ferreira, G., Analysis in weak systems, in: Logic and Computation: Essays in Honour of Amilcar Sernadas, College Publications (2017), 231–261. p. 232Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. and Ferreira, G., The Riemann integral in weak systems of analysis, J. Universal Computer Science, 14 (2008), 908–937. p. 232Google Scholar

Filmus, Y., Hrubeš, P. and Lauria, M., Semantic versus syntactic cutting planes, in: Proc. 33rd Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science(STACS) (2016). p. 405Google Scholar

Filmus, Y., Lauria, M., Mikša, M., Nordström, J. and Vinyals, M., From small space to small width in resolution, ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 16(4) article 28. p. 113Google Scholar

Filmus, Y., Lauria, M., Nordström, J., Thapen, N. and Ron-Zevi, N., Space complexity in polynomial calculus, SIAM J. Computing, 44 (4) (2015), 1119–1153. p. 293Google Scholar

Filmus, Y., Pitassi, T. and Santhanam, R., Exponential lower bounds for AC0-Frege imply super-polynomial Frege lower bounds, in: Proc. 38th International Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), eds. Aceto, L., Henzinger, M. and Sgall, J., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6755 (2011), 618–629. pp. 61, 62Google Scholar

Fleming, N., Pankratov, D., Pitassi, T. and Robere, R., Random (log n)-CNFs are hard for cutting planes, in: Proc. 58th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (2017), 109–120. p. 434Google Scholar

Frege, G., Begriffsschrift: Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens, Halle (1879). pp. 1, 37, 41, 52, 62Google Scholar

Friedman, H., The complexity of explicit definitions, Adv. Mathematics, 20 (1976), 18–29. p. 381Google Scholar

Friedman, H., On the consistency, completeness, and correctness problems, unpublished preprint (1979). p. 461Google Scholar

Friedgut, E., Sharp thresholds of graph properties and the k-SAT problem, J. American Matheamtical Society, 12 (4) (1999), 1017–1054. p. 282Google Scholar

Furst, M., Saxe, J. B. and Sipser, M., Parity, circuits and the polynomial-time hierarchy, Math. Systems Theory, 17 (1984), 13–27. pp. 29, 183Google Scholar

Galesi, N. and Thapen, N., Resolution and pebbling games, in: Proc. 8th International Conf. on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing(SAT), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3569 (2005), 76–90. pp. 113, 293Google Scholar

Garey, M. R., Johnson, D. S. and Stockmeyer, L., Some simplifed NP-complete graphs problems, Theoretical Computer Science, 1 (1976), 237–267. p. 160Google Scholar

Garlík, M., A new proof of Ajtai’s completeness theorem for nonstandard finite structures, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 54 (3–4) (2015), 413–424. p. 454Google Scholar

Garlík, M., Construction of models of bounded arithmetic by restricted reduced powers, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 55 (5) (2016), 625–648.Google Scholar

Garlík, M. and Kolodziejczyk, L., Some subsystems of constant-depth Frege with parity, preprint (2016). pp. 157, 336Google Scholar

Gentzen, G., Die Widerspruchsfreiheit der reinen Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, 112 (1936), 493–565. p. 64Google Scholar

Ghasemloo, K., Uniformity and nonuniformity in proof complexity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (2016). pp. 63, 184Google Scholar

Gödel, K., Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshefte fur Mathematik und Physik, 38(1931), 173–198. pp. 1, 469Google Scholar

Gödel, K., a letter to John von Neumann from 1956, reprinted in: Arithmetic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity, eds. Clote, P. and Krajíček, J., Oxford University Press (1993). p. 2Google Scholar

Goerdt, A., Cutting plane versus Frege proof systems, in: Proc. Conf. Computer Science Logic (CSL 1990), eds. Börger, E., Kleine Büning, H., Richter, M. M. , and Schonfeld, W., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 533, Springer (1991), 174–194. p. 231Google Scholar

Goerdt, A., Davis–Putnam resolution versus unrestricted resolution, Ann. Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 6 (1992), 169–184. p. 295Google Scholar

Goldreich, O. and Levin, L., Hard-core predicates for any one-way function, in: Proc. 21st ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1989), 25–32. p. 363Google Scholar

Gomory, R. E., An algorithm for integer solutions of linear programs, in: Recent Advances in Mathematical Programming, eds. R. L. Graves and P. Wolfe (1963), 269–302. pp. 115, 121Google Scholar

Grigoriev, D., Tseitin’s tautologies and lower bounds for Nullstellensatz proofs, in: Proc. IEEE 39th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (1998), 648–652. pp. 350, 351Google Scholar

Grigoriev, D., Linear lower bound on degrees of Positivstellensatz calculus proofs for the parity, Theoretial Computer Science, 259 (1-2) (2001), 613–622. pp. 132, 347Google Scholar

Grigoriev, D., Complexity of Positivstellensatz proof for the knapsack, Computational Complexity, 10 (2) (2001), 139–154. p. 351Google Scholar

Grigoriev, D., Hirsch, E. A. and Pasechnik, D. V., Complexity of semi-algebraic proofs, Moscow Mathematical J., 2 (4) (2002), 647–679. pp. 131, 132, 351, 352, 408Google Scholar

Grigoriev, D. and Vorobjov, N., Complexity of Null and Positivstellensatz proofs, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 113 (1) (2001), 153–160. pp. 132, 351Google Scholar

Grochow, J. and Pitassi, T., Circuit complexity, proof complexity and polynomial identity testing, in: Conf. on Proc. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (2014). pp. 152, 159, 160Google Scholar

Gurevich, Y., Towards logic tailored for computational complexity, in: Proc. Logic Colloq. 1983, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1104 (1984), 175–216. p. 381Google Scholar

Gutfreund, D., Shaltiel, R. and Ta-Shma, A., If NP languages are hard on the worst-case, then it is easy to find their hard instances, Computational Complexity, 16 (4) (2007), 412–441. p. 479Google Scholar

Hájek, P. and Pudlák, P., Metamathematics of first-order arithmetic, in: Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer (1993). pp. 159, 434, 478Google Scholar

Hajós, G., Über eine Konstruktion nicht n-färbbarer Graphen, Wiss. Zeitschr. Martin Luther Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, A 10 (1961). p. 154Google Scholar

Haken, A., The intractability of resolution, Theoretical Computer Science, 39 (1985), 297–308. pp. 3, 292, 294Google Scholar

Haken, A., Counting bottlenecks to show monotone P = NP, in: Proc. 36th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (1995), 36–40. pp. 359, 382Google Scholar

Hanika, J., Search problems and bounded arithmetic, Ph.D. thesis, Charles University, Prague (2004). p. 435Google Scholar

Hanika, J., Herbrandizing search problems in bounded arithmetic, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 50 (6) (2004), 577–586. p. 435Google Scholar

Hartmanis, J., Lewis, P. M. and Stearns, R. E., Hierarchies of memory limited computations, in: Proc. IEEE Conf. on Switching Circuit Theory and Logic Design, Ann Arbor (1965), 179–190. pp. 26, 38Google Scholar

Hartmanis, J. and Stearns, R. E., On the computational complexity of algorithms, Trans. AMS, 117 (1965), 285–306. pp. 25, 38Google Scholar

Hastad, J., Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. in: Randomness and Computation, ed. S. Micali, (1989), 143–170. pp. 38, 299, 300, 304Google Scholar

Hastad, J., On small-depth Frege proofs for Tseitin for grids, in: Proc. the IEEE 58th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (2017), 97–108. pp. 335, 437Google Scholar

Van Heijenoort, J., ed., From Frege to Gödel (A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931), Harvard University Press (1977). p. 1Google Scholar

Henzl, J., Weak formal systems, M.Sc. thesis, Charles University, Prague (2003). p. 159Google Scholar

Herbrand, J., Recherches sur la théorie de la démonstration, Travaux Soc. Sciences et Lettres de Varsovie, Class III, Sciences Mathematiques et Physiques, 33 (1930). p. 258Google Scholar

Higman, G., Subgroups of finitely presented groups, Proc. Royal Soc. London, A 262 (1961), 455–475. p. 153Google Scholar

Hilbert, D. and Ackermann, W., Principles of Mathematical Logic, Chelsea (1950). Translation of 1938 German edition. p. 39Google Scholar

Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P., Grundlagen der Mathematik. I, in: Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 40, Springer (1934). pp. 37, 39Google Scholar

Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P., Grundlagen der Mathematik. II, in: Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 50, Springer (1939). pp. 37, 39Google Scholar

Hirsch, E. A. and Kojevnikov, A., Several notes on the power of Gomory–Chvátal cuts, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 141 (3) (2006), 429–436. p. 406Google Scholar

Hodges, W., Building Models by Games, Dover (2006). pp. 289, 454Google Scholar

Hrubeš, P., Lower bounds for modal logics, J. Symbolic Logic, 72 (3) (2007), 941–958. p. 410Google Scholar

Hrubeš, P., A lower bound for intuitionistic logic, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 146 (2007), 72–90. p. 410Google Scholar

Hrubeš, P., On lengths of proofs in non-classical logics, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 157 (2-3) (2009), 194–205. p. 410Google Scholar

Hrubeš, P. and Pudlák, P., A note on monotone real ciruits, Information Processing Letters, 131 (2017), 15–19. p. 406Google Scholar

Hrubeš, P. and Pudlák, P., Random formulas, monotone circuits, and interpolation, in: Proc. 58th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science(FOCS) (2017), 121–131. pp. 380, 382, 434Google Scholar

Hrubeš, P. and Tzameret, I., Short proofs for the determinant identities, SIAM J. Computing, 44 (2) (2015), 340–383. p. 435Google Scholar

Huang, L. and Pitassi, T., Automatizability and simple stochastic games, In: Proc. 38th International Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), Aceto, L., Henzinger, M. and Sgall Zurich, J., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6755 (2011), 605–617. p. 470Google Scholar

Immerman, N., Nondeterministic space is closed under complementation, SIAM J. Computing, 17 (5) (1988), 935–938. p. 26Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., and Wigderson, A., In search of an easy witness: exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time, J.Computer Systems Science, 65 (4) (2002), 672–694. p. 433Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R. and Krajíček, J., A note on conservativity relations among bounded arithmetic theories, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 48 (3)(2002), 375–377. pp. 231, 304, 305Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R. and Naor, M., Efficient cryptographic schemes provably as secure as subset sum, J. Cryptology, 9 (4) (1996), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Impagliazzo, R., Pitassi, T. and Urquhart, A., Upper and lower bounds for tree-like cutting planes proofs, in: Proc. Conf. on Logic in Computer Science (LICS) (1994), 220–228. pp. 382, 389, 406Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R. and Pudlák, P., A lower bound for DLL algorithms for SAT, in: Proc. 11th Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (2000), 128–136. pp. 113, 293Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R., Pudlák, P., and Sgall, J., Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus and the Groebner basis algorithm, Computational Complexity, 8 (2) (1999), 127–144. pp. 346, 350, 352Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R. and Segerlind, N., Counting axioms do not polynomially simulate counting gates, in: Proc. IEEE 42nd Annual Symp. on Foundation of Computer Science (FOCS) (2001), 200–209. pp. 335, 336Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R. and Segerlind, N., Constant-depth Frege systems with counting axioms polynomially simulate Nullstellensatz refutations, ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 7 (2) (2006), 199–218. p. 231Google Scholar

Impagliazzo, R. and Wigderson, A., P = BPP unless E has sub-exponential circuits: derandomizing the XOR lemma, in: Proc. 29th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1997), 220–229. pp. 432, 433Google Scholar

Itsykson, D., Knop, A., Romashchenko, A. and Sokolov, D., On OBDD based algorithms and proof systems that dynamically change order of variables, in: Leibniz International Proc. in Informatics, 66 (2017), 43:1–43:14. pp. 159, 408Google Scholar

Itsykson, D. and Kojevnikov, A., Lower bounds of static Lovász–Schrijver calculus proofs for Tseitin tautologies, J. Math. Sci., 145 (2007), 4942–4952. p. 351Google Scholar

Itsykson, D. and Sokolov, D., Lower bounds for splittings by linear combinations, in: Proc. Conf. on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (2014), 372–383. pp. 157, 402, 409Google Scholar

James, G. D., The module orthogonal to the specht module, J. Algebra, 46 (2) (1977), 451–456. p. 349Google Scholar

James, G. D., The Representation Theory of the Symmetric Groups, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 682 (1978). p. 349Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E., Dual weak pigeonhole principle, Boolean complexity, and derandomization, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 129 (2004), 1–37. p. 478Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E., Weak pigeonhole principle, and randomized computation, Ph.D. thesis, Charles University, Prague (2005). pp. 157, 159, 258, 336, 478Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E., Approximate counting in bounded arithmetic, J. Symbolic Logic, 72 (3) (2007), 959–993. pp. 250, 258, 478Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E., On independence of variants of the weak pigeonhole principle, J. Logic and Computation, 17 (3) (2007), 587–604. p. 258Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E., Approximate counting by hashing in bounded arithmetic, J. Symbolic Logic, 7493 (2009), 829–860. pp. 250, 258, 478Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E., A sorting network in bounded arithmetic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 162 (4) (2011), 341–355. pp. 158, 478Google Scholar

Jeřábek, E. and Nguyen, P., Simulating non-prenex cuts in quantified propositional calculus, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 57 (5) (2011), 524–532. p. 91Google Scholar

Jones, J. P. and Matiyasevich, Y., Basis for the polynomial time computable functions, in: Proc. Conf. on Number Theory, Banff, Alberta (1988), 255–270. p. 257Google Scholar

Jukna, S., Boolean Function Complexity, Springer (2012). p. 38Google Scholar

Karchmer, M. and Wigderson, A., Monotone circuits for connectivity require super-logarithmic depth, in: Proc. 20th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1988), 539–550. p. 367Google Scholar

Karchmer, M. and Wigderson, A., On span programs, in: Proc. Conf. on 8th Structure in Complexity Theory, IEEE (1993), 102–111. p. 407Google Scholar

Karp, R. M., Reducibility among combinatorial problems, in: Complexity of Computer Computations, eds. Miller, R. E. and Thatcher, J. W., Plenum (1972), 85–103. pp. 37, 121Google Scholar

Karp, R. M. and Lipton, R. J., Some connections between nonuniform and uniform complexity classes, in: Proc. 12th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1980), 302–309. p. 38Google Scholar

Kleene, S., Introduction to Metamathematics, North Holland (1952). p. 62Google Scholar

Köbler, J., Messner, J., Complete problems for promise classes by optimal proof systems for test sets, in: Proc. 13th Annual IEEE Conf. on Computational Complexity (CCC 98) (1998), 132–140. p. 468Google Scholar

Köbler, J., Messner, J. and Torán, J., Optimal proof systems imply complete sets for promise classes, Infinite Computation, 184 (1) (2003), 71–92. p. 469Google Scholar

Kolodziejczyk, L., Nguyen, P. and Thapen, N., The provably total NP search problems of weak second-order bounded arithmetic, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 162 (2011), 419–446. p. 436Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On the number of steps in proofs, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 41 (1989), 153–178. pp. 60, 62Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Speed-up for propositional Frege systems via generalizations of proofs, Comments. Mathematicae Universitas Carolinae, 30 (1)(1989), 137–140. p. 62Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Exponentiation and second-order bounded arithmetic, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 48 (3) (1990), 261–276. pp. 196, 258Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Fragments of bounded arithmetic and bounded query classes, Trans. AMS, 338 (2) (1993), 587–598. pp. 304, 305Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Lower bounds to the size of constant-depth propositional proofs, J. Symbolic Logic, 59 (1) (1994), 73–86. pp. 3, 43, 80, 209, 210, 292, 300, 301, 304, 334, 381Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On Frege and extended Frege proof Systems. in: Feasible Mathematics II. eds. Clote, P. and Remmel, J., Birkhauser (1995), 284–319. pp. 209, 335, 454Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic, and Complexity Theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, 60, Cambridge University Press (1995). pp. 6, 60, 61, 62, 80, 87, 112, 114, 170, 179, 183, 196, 203, 205, 209, 210, 230, 231, 236, 257, 258, 291, 292, 301, 304, 335, 336, 441, 454, 478Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A fundamental problem of mathematical logic, Ann. Kurt Gödel Society, Collegium Logicum, 2 (1996), 56–64. p. 6Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic, J. Symbolic Logic, 62 (2)(1997), 457–486. pp. 80, 107, 113, 157, 293, 371, 381, 382, 409Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On methods for proving lower bounds in propositional logic, in: Logic and Scientific Methods, eds. Dalla Chiara, M. L. et al., Kluwer Academic (1997), 69–83. p. 6Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Lower bounds for a proof system with an exponential speed-up over constant-depth Frege systems and over polynomial calculus, in: Proc. 22nd International Symp. on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, eds. Prívara, I. and Růžička, P., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1295, Springer (1997), 85–90. pp. 157, 335, 336Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Interpolation by a game, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 44 (4) (1998), 450–458. pp. 405, 406Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Discretely ordered modules as a first-order extension of the cutting planes proof system, J. Symbolic Logic, 63 (4) (1998), 1582–1596. pp. 157, 158, 406, 408, 478Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Extensions of models of PV, in: Proc: Logic Colloq.’95, eds. Makowsky, J. A. and Ravve, E. V., ASL/Springer Series Lecture Notes in Logic, 11 (1998), 104–114. p. 454Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On the degree of ideal membership proofs from uniform families of polynomials over a finite field, Illinois J. Mathematics, 45 (1)(2001), 41–73. p. 349Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Uniform families of polynomial equations over a finite field and structures admitting an Euler characteristic of definable sets, Proc. London Mathematical Society, 3 (81) (2000), 257–284. pp. 349, 455Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On the weak pigeonhole principle, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 170 (1–3) (2001), 123–140. pp. 108, 113, 209, 291, 335, 437Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Tautologies from pseudo-random generators, Bull. Symbolic Logic, 7 (2) (2001), 197–212. pp. 437, 439, 480Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Dehn function and length of proofs, International J. Algebra and Computation, 13 (5) (2003), 527–542. p. 160Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Dual weak pigeonhole principle, pseudo-surjective functions, and provability of circuit lower bounds, J. Symbolic Logic, 69 (1)(2004), 265–286. pp. 157, 258, 292, 293, 433, 437, 439, 440Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Diagonalization in proof complexity, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 182 (2004), 181–192. pp. 158, 439, 464, 470Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Implicit proofs, J. Symbolic Logic, 69 (2) (2004), 387–397. pp. 92, 158, 258, 474Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Combinatorics of first-order structures and propositional proof systems, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 43 (4) (2004), 427–441. pp. 159, 291, 455Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Hardness assumptions in the foundations of theoretical computer science, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 44 (6) (2005), 667–675. p. 480Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Structured pigeonhole principle, search problems and hard tautologies, J. Symbolic Logic, 70 (2) (2005), 619–630. pp. 291, 335, 436, 439Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Proof complexity, in: Proc. European Congress of Mathematics (ECM), ed. Laptev, A., European Mathematical Society (2005), 221–231. p. 6Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Substitutions into propositional tautologies, Information Processing Letters, 101 (4) (2007), 163–167. pp. 439, 441Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., An exponential lower bound for a constraint propagation proof system based on ordered binary decision diagrams, J. Symbolic Logic, 73 (1) (2008), 227–237. pp. 159, 408Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A proof complexity generator, in: Proc. 13th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Beijing, 2007), eds. C. Glymour, W. Wang, and D. Westerstahl (2009), 185–190. pp. 430, 437, 439Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A form of feasible interpolation for constant depth Frege systems, J. Symbolic Logic, 75 (2) (2010), 774–784. p. 410Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On the proof complexity of the Nisan–Wigderson generator based on a hard NP ∩ coNP function, J. Mathematical Logic, 11 (1)(2011), 11–27. pp. 383, 439Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A note on propositional proof complexity of some Ramsey-type statements, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 50 (1–2) (2011), 245–255. pp. 291, 292, 335Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Forcing with Random Variables and proof Complexity, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 382, Cambridge University Press (2011). pp. 6, 161, 210, 336, 437, 439, 452, 453, 454, 480Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A note on SAT algorithms and proof complexity, Information Processing Letters, 112 (2012), 490–493. p. 478Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Pseudo-finite hard instances for a student–teacher game with a Nisan–Wigderson generator, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 8 (3) (2012), 1–8. pp. 439, 454Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A saturation property of structures obtained by forcing with a compact family of random variables, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 52 (1) (2013), 19–28.Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., On the computational complexity of finding hard tautologies, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 46 (1) (2014), 111–125. pp. 468, 479Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., A reduction of proof complexity to computational complexity for AC⁰p Frege systems, Proceedings of the AMS, 143 (11) (2015), 4951–4965. p. 336Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Consistency of circuit evaluation, extended resolution and total NP search problems, Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 4 (2016), e15. DOI: 10.1017/fms.2016.13. pp. 158, 436, 437Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Expansions of pseudofinite structures and circuit and proof complexity, in: Liber Amicorum Alberti, eds. van Eijck, J., Iemhoff, R. and Joosten, J. J., Tributes Series 30, College Publications, London (2016), 195–203. p. 454Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Randomized feasible interpolation and monotone circuits with a local oracle, preprint (2016). pp. 157, 402, 408, 409Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Oliveira, I. C., Unprovability of circuit upper bounds in Cook’s theory PV, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 13 (1) (2017). p. 479Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Oliveira, I. C., On monotone circuits with local oracles and clique lower bounds, Chicago J. Theoretical Computer Science, to appear. p. 409Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., The number of proof lines and the size of proofs in first order logic, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 27 (1988), 69–84. p. 62Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., On the structure of initial segments of models of arithmetic, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 28 (2) (1989), 91–98. pp. 163, 259Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first-order theories and the complexity of computations, J. Symbolic Logic, 54 (3) (1989), 1063–1079. pp. 34, 35, 38, 62, 435, 462, 468Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Quantified propositional calculi and fragments of bounded arithmetic, Zeitschr. f. Mathematikal Logik u. Grundlagen d. Mathematik, 36 (1) (1990), 29–46. pp. 248, 258Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Propositional provability in models of weak arithmetic, in: Proc. Conf. on Computer Science Logic (Kaiserlautern ‘89), eds. Boerger, E., Kleine-Bunning, H. and Richter, M. M., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 440, Springer (1990), 193–210. p. 454Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures for and EF, in: Proc. Meeting on Logic and Computational Complexity (Indianapolis, 1994), ed. Leivant, D., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 960, Springer (1995), 210–220. p. 382Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures for and EF, Information and Computation, 140 (1) (1998), 82–94. pp. 382, 404, 409Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P., and Sgall, J., Interactive computations of optimal solutions, in: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, ed. Rovan, B., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 452, Springer (1990), 48–60. p. 258Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P. and Takeuti, G., Bounded arithmetic and the polynomial hierarchy, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 52 (1991), 143–153. pp. 235, 239, 257, 258, 479Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P., and Woods, A., An exponential lower bound to the size of bounded depth Frege proofs of the pigeonhole principle, Random Structures and Algorithms, 7 (1) (1995), 15–39. pp. 318, 334, 335Google Scholar

Krajíček, J., Skelley, A. and Thapen, N., NP search problems in low fragments of bounded arithmetic, J. Symbolic Logic, 72 (2) (2007), 649–672. pp. 292, 436, 437Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Takeuti, G., On bounded -polynomial induction, in: Feasible Mathematics, eds. Buss, S. R. and Scott, P. J., Birkhauser (1990), 259–280. pp. 248, 258Google Scholar

Krajíček, J. and Takeuti, G., On induction-free provability, Ann. Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 6 (1992), 107–126. p. 435Google Scholar

Kreisel, G., Technical report NO. 3, Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratories, Stanford University, unpublished (1961). p. 381Google Scholar

Krishnamurthy, B. and Moll, R. N., Examples of hard tautologies in the propositional calculus, in: Proc. 13th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC) (1981), 28–37. pp. 112, 291Google Scholar

Krivine, J. L., Anneaux préordonnés, J. d’Analyse Mathématique, 12 (1964), 307–326. pp. 115, 132Google Scholar

Kullmann, O., On a generalization of extended resolution, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 96 -97 (1999), 149–176. p. 295Google Scholar

Kullmann, O., Upper and lower bounds on the complexity of generalized resolution and generalized constraint satisfaction problems, Ann. Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 40 (3–4) (2004), 303–352. p. 295Google Scholar

Lagarias, J. C., An elementary problem equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis, American Mathematical Monthly, 109 (6) (2002), 534–543. p. 38Google Scholar

Lasserre, J. B., Global optimization with polynomials and the problem of moments, SIAM J. Optimization, 11 (3) (2001), 796–817. p. 131Google Scholar

Laurent, M., A comparison of the Sherali–Adams, Lovász–Schrijver and Lasserre relaxations for 0-1 programming, Mathematics of Operations Research, 28 (2001), 470–496. p. 132Google Scholar

Lauria, M., Short Res^*(polylog) refutations if and only if narrow Res refutations, unpublished notes available at www.dsi.uniroma1.it/ ~ lauria, (2011). pp. 114, 209Google Scholar

Lauria, M. and Nordström, J., Tight size–degree bounds for sums-of-squares proofs, in: Proc. 30th Conf. on Computational Complexity (CCC’15), ed. D. Zuckerman (2015), 448–466. p. 352Google Scholar

Tri Man Le, Dai, Bounded Arithmetic and Formalizing Probabilistic Proofs, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (2014). p. 479Google Scholar

Lee, T. and Shraibman, A., Disjointness is hard in the multi-party number-on-the-forehead model, Computational Complexity, 18 (2) (2009), 309–336. p. 407Google Scholar

Levin, L. A., Universal sequential search problems, Problems of Information Transmission (translated from Problemy Peredachi Informatsii (Russian)), 9 (3) (1973), 115–116. p. 38Google Scholar

Lovász, L., Naor, M., Newman, I. and Wigderson, A., Search problems in the decision tree model, in: Proc. 32nd IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), (1991), 576–585. p. 112Google Scholar

Lovász, L. and Schrijver, A., Cones of matrices and set-functions and 0-1 optimization, SIAM J. Optimization, 1 (1991), 166–190. pp. 115, 130, 131Google Scholar

Lukasiewicz, J., Elements of Mathematical Logic, Pergamon Press (1963). p. 41Google Scholar

Lupanov, O. B., The synthesis of contact circuits, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (NS), 119 (1958), 23–26. p. 38Google Scholar

Lyndon, R., An interpolation theorem in the predicate calculus, Pacific J. Mathematics, 9 (1) (1959), 129–142. pp. 14, 37Google Scholar

Lyndon, R. and Schupp, P., Combinatorial Group Theory, Springer (1997). p. 160Google Scholar

Maciel, A. and Pitassi, T., Towards lower bounds for bounded-depth Frege proofs with modular connectives, in: Proof Complexity and Feasible Arithmetics, eds. P. Beame and S. Buss, DIMACS Series, 39 (1998), 195–227. p. 335Google Scholar

Maciel, A., Pitassi, T. and Woods, A., A new proof of the weak pigeonhole principle, J. Computer Systems Sciences, 64 (2002), 843–872. pp. 220, 231Google Scholar

Maly, J., Jan Krajíček’s Forcing Construction and Pseudo Proof Systems, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Vienna (2016). p. 161Google Scholar

Maly, J. and Müller, M., Pseudo proof systems and hard instances of SAT, preprint 2017. p. 161Google Scholar

Maté, A., Nondeterministic polynomial-time computations and models of arithmetic, J. ACM, 37 (1) (1990), 175–193. p. 454Google Scholar

Messner, J., On optimal algorithms and optimal proof systems, in: Proc. Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 1999), eds. Meinel, C. and Tison, S., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1563 (1999), 541–550. p. 468Google Scholar

Messner, J. and Torán, J., Optimal proof systems for propositional logic and complete sets, in: Proc. Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 1998), eds. Morvan, M., Meinel, C., and Krob, D. , Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1373 (1998), 477–487. p. 468Google Scholar

Mikle-Barát, O., Strong proof systems, M.Sc. thesis, Charles University, Prague (2007). pp. 159, 408Google Scholar

Mikša, M. and Nordström, J., A generalized method for proving polynomial calculus degree lower bounds, in: Proc. 30th Annual Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2015), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, 33 (2015), 467–487. pp. 350, 351Google Scholar

Morioka, T., Logical approaches to the complexity of search problems: proof complexity, quantified propositional calculus, and bounded arithmetic, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (2005). p. 91Google Scholar

Muchnik, A. A., On two approaches to the classification of recursive functions (in Russian), in: Problems of Mathematical Logic, Complexity of Algorithms and Classes of Computable Functions, eds. V. A. Kozmidiadi and A. A. Muchnik (1970), 123–138. p. 257Google Scholar

Müller, M. and Pich, J., Feasibly constructive proofs of succinct weak circuit lower bounds, in: Proc. Electronic Colloq. on Computational Complexity (ECCC), TR17–144 (2017). pp. 441, 474, 478Google Scholar

Müller, S., Polylogarithmic cuts in models of V⁰, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 9 (1:16) (2013). p. 231Google Scholar

Müller, S. and Tzameret, I., Short propositional refutations for dense random 3CNF formulas, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 165 (12) (2014), 1864–1918. pp. 160, 471Google Scholar

Mundici, D., Complexity of Craig’s interpolation, Fundamenta Informaticae, 5 (1982), 261–278. p. 380Google Scholar

Mundici, D., A lower bound for the complexity of Craig’s interpolants in sentential logic, Archiv fur Math. Logik, 23 (1983), 27–36. p. 380Google Scholar

Mundici, D., Tautologies with a unique Craig interpolant, uniform vs. non-uniform complexity, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 27 (1984), 265–273. p. 380Google Scholar

Mundici, D., NP and Craig’s interpolation theorem, in: Proc. Logic Colloq. 1982, North-Holland (1984), 345–358. p. 380Google Scholar

Nepomnjascij, V., Rudimentary predicates and Turing calculations, Soviet Math. Dokl., 6 (1970), 1462–1465. p. 182Google Scholar

Nisan, N., The communication complexity of the threshold gates, in: Combinatorics, P. Erdös is Eighty, 1, eds. Miklós, et. al., Bolyai Mathematical Society (1993), 301–315. p. 388Google Scholar

Nisan, N. and Wigderson, A., Hardness vs. randomness, J. Computer System Sciences, 49 (1994), 149–167. pp. 432, 433, 438, 439Google Scholar

Nordström, J., Short proofs may be spacious: understanding space in resolution, Ph.D. thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (2008). p. 294Google Scholar

Nordström, J., Narrow proofs may be spacious: separating space and width in resolution, SIAM J. Computing, 39 (1) (2009), 59–121. pp. 113, 294Google Scholar

Nordström, J., On the relative strength of pebbling and resolution, ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 13 (2), article 16 (2012). p. 294Google Scholar

Nordström, J., Pebble games, proof complexity and time-space trade-offs, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 9 (15) (2013), 1–63. p. 294Google Scholar

Nordström, J., On the interplay between proof complexity and SAT solving, ACM SIGLOG News, 2 (3) (2015), 19–44. p. 294Google Scholar

Nordström, J. and Hastad, J., Towards an optimal separation of space and length in resolution, Theory of Computing, 9, article 14 (2013), 471–557. p. 294Google Scholar

Novikov, P. S., On the algorithmic unsolvability of the word problem in group theory, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklova, 44 (1955), 143. p. 153Google Scholar

O’Donnell, R., SOS is not obviously automatizable, even approximately, in: Proc. Conf. on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) (2017), 59:1–59:10. p. 471Google Scholar

de Oliveira, M. and Pudlák, P., Representations of monotone Boolean functions by linear programs, in: Proc. 32nd Computational Complexity Conf. (CCC 2017), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, 79 (2017), 3:1–3:14. pp. 395, 407Google Scholar

Papadimitriou, C., Computational Complexity, Addison Wesley (1994). p. 37Google Scholar

Papadimitriou, C., The complexity of the parity argument and other inefficient proofs of existence, J. Computer and System Sciences, 48 (3)(1994), 498–532. p. 436Google Scholar

Parikh, R., Existence and feasibility in arithmetic, J. Symbolic Logic, 36 (1971), 494–508. pp. 163, 165, 166, 182Google Scholar

Paris, J. B., O struktuře modelu omezené E₁ indukce (in Czech), Časopis pěstování matematiky, 109 (1984), 372–379. p. 182Google Scholar

Paris, J. and Dimitracopoulos, C., Truth definitions for Δ₀ formulas, in: Logic and Algorithmic, l’Enseignement Mathematique, 30 (1982), 318–329. p. 182Google Scholar

Paris, J. and Dimitracopoulos, C., A note on undefinability of cuts, J. Symbolic Logic, 48 (1983), 564–569. p. 182Google Scholar

Paris, J. B., Handley, W. G. and Wilkie, A. J., Characterizing some low arithmetic classes, Colloquia Mathematica Soc. J. Bolyai, 44 (1984), 353–364. p. 182Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Harrington, L., A mathematical incompleteness in Peano Arithmetic, in: Handbook of Mathematical Logic, ed. Barwise, J., North-Holland (1977). p. 414Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Kirby, L. Σ_n-collection schemes in arithmetic, in: Proc. Logic Colloq. ‘77, North-Holland (1978), 199–209. p. 182Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Wilkie, A. J., Models of arithmetic and rudimentary sets, Bull. Soc. Mathem. Belg., B 33 (1981), 157–169. pp. 182, 478Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Wilkie, A. J., Δ₀ sets and induction, in: Proc. Jadwisin Logic Conf., (1983), 237–248. pp. 182, 183, 478Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Wilkie, A. J., Some results on bounded induction, in: Proc. 2nd Easter Conf. on Model Theory (1984), 223–228. pp. 182, 478Google Scholar

Paris, J. and Wilkie, A. J., Counting problems in bounded arithmetic, in: Methods in Mathematical Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1130(1985), 317–340. pp. 3, 61, 163, 165, 167, 169, 170, 182, 183, 209, 210, 221, 231, 258, 307, 336, 454, 478Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Wilkie, A. J., Counting Δ₀ sets, Fundamenta Mathematica, 127 (1987), 67–76. pp. 183, 259, 478Google Scholar

Paris, J. B. and Wilkie, A. J., On the scheme of induction for bounded arithmetic formulas, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 35 (1987), 261–302. pp. 166, 183, 435, 478, 480Google Scholar

Paris, J., Wilkie, A. J. and Woods, A., Provability of the pigeonhole principle and the existence of infinitely many primes, J. Symbolic Logic, 53 (4)(1988), 1235–1244. pp. 38, 183, 218, 220, 231, 259, 336Google Scholar

Perron, S., Examining fragments of the quantified propositional calculus J. Symbolic Logic, 73 (3) (2008), 1051–1080. p. 91Google Scholar

Perron, S., Power of non-uniformity in proof complexity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (2009). p. 91Google Scholar

Pich, J., Hard tautologies, M.Sc. thesis, Charles University, Prague (2011). p. 439Google Scholar

Pich, J., Nisan–Wigderson generators in proof systems with forms of interpolation, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 57 (4) (2011), 379–383. p. 439Google Scholar

Pich, J., Complexity Theory in Feasible Mathematics, Ph.D. thesis, Charles University, Prague (2014). p. 478Google Scholar

Pich, J., Circuit lower bounds in bounded arithmetic, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 166 (1) (2015), 29–45. p. 479Google Scholar

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). p. 478Google Scholar

Pitassi, T., Beame, P., and Impagliazzo, R., Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle, Computational Complexity, 3 (1993), 97–308. pp. 318, 334, 335Google Scholar

Pitassi, T. and Raz, R., Regular resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle, Combinatorica, 24 (3) (2004), 503–524. p. 293Google Scholar

Pitassi, T. and Santhanam, R., Effective polynomial simulations, in: Proc. 1st Symp. on Innovations in CS (2010), 370–382. pp. 38, 469Google Scholar

Pitassi, T. and Segerlind, N., Exponential lower bounds and integrality gaps for tree-like Lovász–Schrijver procedures, SIAM J. Computing, 41 (1)(2012), 128–159. p. 349Google Scholar

Pitassi, T. and Urquhart, A., The complexity of the Hajos calculus, SIAM J. Discrete Mathematics, 8 (3) (1995), 464–483. pp. 155, 160Google Scholar

Pratt, V. R., Every prime has a succinct certificate, SIAM J. Computing, 4 (1975), 214–220. p. 409Google Scholar

Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction. A Proof-Theoretic Study, Stockholm (1965). p. 79Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., A definition of exponentiation by bounded arithematic formula, Comment. Mathematicae Universitas Carolinae, 24 (4) (1983), 667–671. p. 183Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Cuts, consistency statements and interpretations, J. Symbolic Logic, 50 (1985), 423–441. pp. 259, 470Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., On the length of proofs of finitistic consistency statements in first-order theories, in: Proc. Logic Colloquium 84, North Holland (1986), 165–196. pp. 259, 461, 462Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Improved bounds to the length of proofs of finitistic consistency statements, Contemporary Mathematics, 65 (1987), 309–331. pp. 259, 469, 470Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Ramsey’s theorem in bounded arithmetic, in: Proc. Computer Science Logic ‘90, eds. Borger, E., Kleine Buning, H., Richter, M. M. and Schonfeld, W., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 533 (1991), 308–317. p. 292Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Lower bounds for resolution and cutting planes proofs and monotone computations, J. Symbolic Logic, 62 (3) (1997), 981–998. pp. 378, 382, 386, 387, 405Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., The lengths of proofs, in: Handbook of Proof Theory, ed. Buss, S. R., Elsevier (1998), 547–637. pp. 6, 382Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., On the complexity of propositional calculus, in: Sets and Proofs, Proc. Logic Colloq. ‘97, Cambridge University Press (1999), 197–218. pp. 132, 157, 158, 395, 407Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Proofs as games, American Math. Monthly (June–July 2000), 541–550. p. 293Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., On reducibility and symmetry of disjoint NP-pairs, Theoretical Computer Science, 295 (2003), 323–339. pp. 383, 468, 471Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Consistency and games – in search of new combinatorial principles, in: Proc. Logic Colloq. ‘03, eds. Stoltenberg-Hansen, V. and Vaananen, J., Association for Symbolic Logic (2006), 244–281. p. 436Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Twelve problems in proof complexity, in: Proc. 3rd International Computer Science Symp. in Russia (CSR) (2008), 13–27. p. 6Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Quantum deduction rules, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 157 (2009), 16–29. p. 160Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., A lower bound on the size of resolution proofs of the Ramsey theorem, Information Processing Letters, 112 (14–15) (2012), 610–611. p. 292Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Logical Foundations of Mathematics and Computational Complexity, A Gentle Introduction, Springer (2013). pp. 6, 480Google Scholar

Pudlák, P., Incompleteness in the finite domain, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 23 (4) (2017), 405–441. p. 469Google Scholar

Pudlák, P. and Sgall, J., Algebraic models of computation, and interpolation for algebraic proof systems, in: Proof Complexity and Feasible Arithmetic, ed. S. Buss, DIMACS Series 39 (1998), 279–295. pp. 392, 407Google Scholar

Pudlák, P. and Thapen, N., Random resolution refutations, preprint, in: Proc. 32nd Computational Complexity Conf. (CCC 2017), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, 79 (2017), 1:1–1:10. pp. 156, 160, 293Google Scholar

Raghavendra, P. and Weitz, B., On the bit-complexity of sum-of-squares proofs, in: Proc. 44th International Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) (2017), 80:1–80:13. p. 471Google Scholar

Raz, R., Resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle, J. Association for Computing Machinery, 51 (2) (2004), 115–138. p. 292Google Scholar

Raz, R. and Tzameret, I., Resolution over linear equations and multilinear proofs, Ann. Pure and Applied Logic, 155 (3) (2008), 194–224. p. 157Google Scholar

Raz, R. and Wigderson, A., Probabilistic communication complexity of Boolean relations, in: Proc. IEEE 30th Annual Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (1989), 562–567. pp. 389, 408Google Scholar

Raz, R. and Wigderson, A., Monotone circuits for matching require linear depth, J. ACM, 39 (3) (1992), 736–744. pp. 360, 382, 389Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., Lower bounds for the monotone complexity of some Boolean functions, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 281 (4) (1985), 798–801. English translation in Soviet Math. Doklady, 31 (1985), 354–357. pp. 30, 288, 382Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth networks over a complete basis with logical addition, Matem. Zametki, 41 (4) (1987), 598–607. pp. 30, 329Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., An equivalence between second-order bounded domain bounded arithmetic and first order bounded arithmetic, in: Arithmetic, Proof Theory and Computational Complexity, eds. Clote, P. and Krajíček, J., Oxford University Press (1993), 247–277. p. 196Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., On provably disjoint NP-pairs, Basic Research in Computer Science Center, Aarhus, RS-94-36 (1994), unpublished report. p. 382Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., Bounded arithmetic and lower bounds in Boolean complexity, in: Feasible Mathematics II, eds. Clote, P. and Remmel, J., Birkhauser (1995), 344–386. p. 478Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., Unprovability of lower bounds on the circuit size in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic, Izvestiya RAN., 59 (1) (1995), 201–224. pp. 368, 381, 382, 440, 478Google Scholar

Razborov, A. A., Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus, Computational Complexity, 7 (4) (1998), 291–324. pp. 343, 350Google Scholar