Skip to main content

Lower bounds for cutting planes proofs with small coefficients

  • Maria Bonet (a1), Toniann Pitassi (a2) and Ran Raz (a3)

We consider small-weight Cutting Planes (CP*) proofs; that is, Cutting Planes (CP) proofs with coefficients up to Poly(n). We use the well known lower bounds for monotone complexity to prove an exponential lower bound for the length of CP* proofs, for a family of tautologies based on the clique function. Because Resolution is a special case of small-weight CP, our method also gives a new and simpler exponential lower bound for Resolution.

We also prove the following two theorems: (1) Tree-like CP* proofs cannot polynomially simulate non-tree-like CP* proofs. (2) Tree-like CP* proofs and Bounded-depth-Frege proofs cannot polynomially simulate each other.

Our proofs also work for some generalizations of the CP* proof system. In particular, they work for CP* with a deduction rule, and also for any proof system that allows any formula with small communication complexity, and any set of sound rules of inference.

Hide All
[1]Ajtai, M., The complexity of the pigeonhole principle, forthcoming; preliminary version, 29th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 346355, 1988.
[2]Alon, N. and Boppana, R., The monotone circuit complexity of Boolean functions, Combinatorica, vol. Vol 7, No. 1 (1987), pp. 122.
[3]Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., Krajíček, J., Pitassi, T., Pudlák, P., and Woods, A., Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle, Symposium on Theoretical Computer Science, 1992, pp. 200221.
[4]Beame, P. and Lawry, J., Randomized versus nondeterministic communication complexity, Symposium on Theoretical Computer Science, 1992, pp. 188199.
[5]Buss, S., Polynomial size proofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), pp. 916927.
[6]Buss, S. and Clote, P., Cutting planes, connectivity and threshold logic, to appear in Archive for Mathematical Logic.
[7]Chvatal, V., Edmond polytopes and a hierarchy of combinatorial problems, Discrete Math., vol. 4 (1973), pp. 305337.
[8]Cook, S. and Haken, A., manuscript in preparation.
[9]Cook, S. and Reckhow, R., The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, this Journal, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 3650.
[10]Cook, W., Coullard, C. R., and Turan, G., On the complexity of cutting plane proofs, Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol. 18 (1987), pp. 2538.
[11]Goerdt, A., Cuttingplane versus Frege proof systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 533.
[12]Gomory, R. E., An algorithm for integer solutions of linear programs, Recent advances in mathematical programming, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 269302.
[13]Haken, A., The intractability of resolution, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 39 (1985), pp. 297308.
[14]Impagliazzo, R., Pitassi, T., and Urquhart, A., Upper and lower bounds for tree-like cutting planes proofs, Proceedings from Logic in Computer Science, 1994.
[15]Karchmer, M., Communication complexity: A new approach to circuit depth, MIT Press, 1989.
[16]Karchmer, M. and Wigderson, A., Monotone circuits for connectivity require super-logarithmic depth, Proceedings of the 20th STOC, 1988, pp. 539550.
[17]Krajíček, J., Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems and independence results for bounded arithmetic, to appear in this Journal.
[18]Krajíček, J., Lower bounds to the size of constant-depth propositional proofs, this Journal, vol. 59 (1994), no. 1, pp. 7386.
[19]Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures for EF, manuscript, 1995.
[20]Kushilevitz, E. and Nisan, N., Communication complexity, to appear.
[21]Clote, P., Cutting planes and constant depth Frege proofs, manuscript, 1993.
[22]Paris, J., Wilkie, A., and Woods, A., Provability of the pigeonhole principle and the existence of infinitely many primes, this Journal, vol. 53 (1988), no. 4, pp. 12351244.
[23]Pudlák, P., manuscript in preparation.
[24]Raz, R., Lower bounds for probabilistic communication complexity and for the depth of monotone Boolean circuits, Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University, 1992, in Hebrew.
[25]Raz, R. and Wigderson, A., Probabilistic communication complexity of Boolean relations, Proceedings of the 30th FOCS, 1989, pp. 562567.
[26]Raz, R. and Wigderson, A., Monotone circuits for matching require linear depth, ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1990, pp. 287292.
[27]Razborov, A., Lower bounds for the monotone complexity of some Boolean functions, Dokl. Ak. Nauk. SSSR, vol. 281 (1985), pp. 798801, in Russian; English translation in Sov. Math. Dokl, vol. 31 (1985), pp. 354–357.
[28]Razborov, A., Unprovability of lower bounds on the circuit size in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic, Izvestiya of the R.A.N., vol. 59 (1995), no. 1, pp. 201224.
[29]Razborov, A. and Rudich, S., Natural proofs, Proceedings from the Twenty-sixth ACM Symposium on Theoretical Computer Science, 05 1994, pp. 204213.
[30]Yao, A. C.-C., Some complexity questions related to distributive computing, 11th Symposium on Theoretical Computer Science, 1979, pp. 209213.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Symbolic Logic
  • ISSN: 0022-4812
  • EISSN: 1943-5886
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed