Skip to main content
×
×
Home

LOWER BOUNDS FOR DNF-REFUTATIONS OF A RELATIVIZED WEAK PIGEONHOLE PRINCIPLE

  • ALBERT ATSERIAS (a1), MORITZ MÜLLER (a2) and SERGI OLIVA (a3)
Abstract

The relativized weak pigeonhole principle states that if at least 2n out of n2 pigeons fly into n holes, then some hole must be doubly occupied. We prove that every DNF-refutation of the CNF encoding of this principle requires size $2^{\left( {{\rm{log\ }}n} \right)^{3/2 - \varepsilon } } $ for every ε﹥0 and every sufficiently large n. By reducing it to the standard weak pigeonhole principle with 2n pigeons and n holes, we also show that this lower bound is essentially tight in that there exist DNF-refutations of size $2^{\left( {{\rm{log\ }}n} \right)^{O\left( 1 \right)} } $ even in R(log). For the lower bound proof we need to discuss the existence of unbalanced low-degree bipartite expanders satisfying a certain robustness condition.

Copyright
References
Hide All
[1]Ajtai, M., The complexity of the pigeonhole principle, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ′88), IEEE Computer Society, White Plains, New York, pp. 346355, 1988.
[2]Ajtai, M., Approximate counting with uniform constant-depth circuits, Advances in computational complexity theory, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 13, pp. 120, 1993.
[3]Ajtai, M. and Ben-Or, M., A theorem on probabilistic constant depth computations, Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ′84), pp. 471474, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800057.808715, ACM, New York, NY, 1984.
[4]Atserias, A., Improved bounds on the weak pigeonhole principle and infinitely many primes from weaker axioms. Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 295 (2003), no. 13, pp. 27–39.
[5]Atserias, A., On sufficient conditions for unsatisfiability of random formulas. Journal of the ACM, vol. 51 (2004), no. 2, pp. 281311.
[6]Atserias, A., Bonet, M.L., and Esteban, J.L., Lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle and random formulas beyond resolution. Information and Computation, vol. 176 (2002), no. 2, pp. 136152.
[7]Barrington, D. A. M., Immerman, N., and Straubing, H., On uniformity within NC. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 41 (1990), no. 3, pp. 274306.
[8]Beame, P., Impagliazzo, R., and Pitassi, T., Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle. Computational Complexity, vol. 3 (1993), no. 2, pp. 97140.
[9]Ben-Sasson, E. and Galesi, N., Space complexity of random formulae in resolution. Random Structures and Algorithms, vol. 23 (2003), no. 1, pp. 92109.
[10]Ben-Sasson, E. and Wigderson, A., Short proofs are narrow – resolution made simple. Journal of the ACM, vol. 48 (2001), no. 2, pp. 149169.
[11]Bollobás, B., Random Graphs, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.
[12]Buss, S. R., Polynomial size proofs of the propositional pigeonhole principle, this Journal, vol. 52 (1987), no. 4, pp. 916927.
[13]Buss, S. R., First-Order Proof Theory of Arithmetic, Handbook of Proof Theory (Buss, S. R., editor), Elsevier, 1998, pp. 79147.
[14]Cook, S. A. and Reckhow, R. A., The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, this Journal, vol. 44 (1979), no. 1, pp. 3650.
[15]Dantchev, S. and Riis, S., On relativisation and complexity gap for resolution-based proof systems, Proceedings of 17th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Science Logic (CSL), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2803, pp. 142154, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
[16]Furst, M. L., Saxe, J. B., and Sipser, M., Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ′81), pp. 260270, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1981.
[17]Furst, M. L., Saxe, J. B., and Sipser, M., Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Theory of Computing Systems, vol. 17 (1984), no. 1, pp. 1327.
[18]Haken, A., The intractability of resolution, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 39 (1985), no. 2–3, pp. 297308.
[19]Krajíček, J., Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic, and Complexity Theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 60, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995.
[20]Krajíček, J., On the weak pigeonhole principle. Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 170 (2001), no. 1–3, pp. 123140.
[21]Krajíček, J., Combinatorics of first order structures and propositional proof systems. Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 43 (2004), no. 4, pp. 427441.
[22]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 & Algorithms, vol. 7 (1995), no. 1, pp. 1539.
[23]Maciel, A., Pitassi, T., and Woods, A. R., A new proof of the weak pigeonhole principle. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 64 (2002), no. 4, pp. 843872.
[24]Paris, J.B. and Wilkie, A.J., Counting problems in bounded arithmetic, Methods in Mathematical Logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1130, pp. 317340, 1985.
[25]Paris, J.B., Wilkie, A.J., and Woods, A.R., Provability of the pigeonhole principle and the existence of infinitely many primes, this Journal, vol. 53 (1988), no. 4, pp. 12351244.
[26]Pudlák, P., A bottom-up approach to foundations of mathematics, Gödel′ (Hajek, P., editor,) Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 6, pp. 8197, Springer, 1996.
[27]Pudlák, P., Proofs as games, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 541550, 2000.
[28]Raz, R., Resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle. Journal of the ACM, vol. 51 (2004), no. 2, pp. 115138.
[29]Razborov, A. A., Resolution lower bounds for the weak functional pigeonhole principle. Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 1 (2003), no. 303, pp. 233243.
[30]Razborov, A. A., Pseudorandom generators hard for k-DNF resolution and polynomial calculus, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 181 (2015), no. 2, pp. 415472.
[31]Riis, S., A complexity gap for tree-resolution. Computational Complexity, vol. 10 (2001), pp. 179209.
[32]Robbins, H., A remark on Stirling’s formula. The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 62 (1955), no. 1, pp. 2629.
[33]Segerlind, N., The complexity of propositional proofs. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 13 (2007), no. 4, pp. 417481.
[34]Segerlind, N., Buss, S. R., and Impagliazzo, R., A switching lemma for small restrictions and lower bounds for k-DNF resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 33 (2004), no. 5, pp. 11711200.
[35]Stockmeyer, L. J., The Complexity of Approximate Counting (Preliminary Version), Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ′83), ACM, New York, NY, pp. 118126, 1983.
[36]Viola, E., On approximate majority and probabilistic time. Computational Complexity, vol. 18 (2009), no. 3, pp. 337375.
[37]Viola, E., Randomness Buys Depth for Approximate Counting. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ′11), IEEE Society Press, Palm Springs, CA, pp. 230239, 2011.
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? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

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