Abstract
A fertile area of recent research has demonstrated concrete polynomial-time lower bounds for natural hard problems on restricted computational models. Among these problems are Satisfiability, Vertex Cover, Hamilton Path, MOD6-SAT, Majority-of-Majority-SAT, and Tautologies, to name a few. The proofs of these lower bounds follow a proof-by-contradiction strategy that we call resource trading or alternation trading. An important open problem is to determine how powerful such proofs can possibly be.
We propose a methodology for studying these proofs that makes them amenable to both formal analysis and automated theorem proving. We prove that the search for better lower bounds can often be turned into a problem of solving a large series of linear programming instances. Implementing a small-scale theorem prover based on these results, we extract new human-readable time lower bounds for several problems and identify patterns that allow for further generalization. The framework can also be used to prove concrete limitations on the current techniques.
- Allender, E., Koucky, M., Ronneburger, D., Roy, S., and Vinay, V. 2001. Time-space tradeoffs in the counting hierarchy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’01). 295--302. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Arnold, D. B. and Sleep, M. R. 1980. Uniform random generation of balanced parenthesis strings. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2, 1, 122--128. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Arora, S. and Barak, B. 2009. Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Buss, S. and Williams, R. 2012. Limits on alternation-trading proofs for time-space lower bounds. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’12). 181--191. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Chandra, A. K., Kozen, D., and Stockmeyer, L. J. 1981. Alternation. J. ACM 28, 1, 114--133. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Cook, S. A. 1988. Short propositional formulas represent nondeterministic computations. Inf. Process. Lett. 26, 5, 269--270. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Derman. C. 1972. Finite State Markov Decision Processes. Academic Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Diehl, S. and van Melkebeek, D. 2006. Time-space lower bounds for the polynomial-time hierarchy on randomized machines. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 563--594. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Diehl, S., van Melkebeek, D., and Williams, R. 2011. An improved time-space lower bound for tautologies. J. Comb. Optim. 22, 3, 325--338. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dietzfelbinger, M. and Hühne, M. 1999. Matching upper and lower bounds for simulations of several linear tapes on one multidimensional tape. Comput. Complex. 8, 4, 371--392. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fortnow, L. 1997. Nondeterministic polynomial time versus nondeterministic logarithmic space: Time-space tradeoffs for satisfiability. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’97). 52--60. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fortnow, L. and van Melkebeek, D. 2000. Time-space tradeoffs for nondeterministic computation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’00). 2--13. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fortnow, L., Lipton, R., van Melkebeek, D., and Viglas, A. 2005. Time-space lower bounds for satisfiability. J. ACM 52, 6, 835--865. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Grigorev, D. Y. 1982. Time complexity of multidimensional turing machines. J. Math. Sci. 20, 4, 2290--2295.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Halpern, J. Y., Loui, M. C., Meyer, A. R., and Weise, D. 1986. On time versus space III. Math. Syst. Theory 19, 1, 13--28.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hopcroft, J., Paul, W., and Valiant, L. 1977. On time versus space. J. ACM 24, 2. 332--337. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kannan, R. 1983. Alternation and the power of nondeterminism. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’83). 344--346. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kannan, R. 1984. Towards separating nondeterminism from determinism. Math. Syst. Theory 17, 1, 29--45.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lipton, R. J. and Viglas, A. 1999. On the complexity of SAT. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’99). 459--464. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Liskiewicz, M. and Lorys, K. 1990. Fast simulations of time-bounded one-tape turing machines by space-bounded ones. SIAM J. Comput. 19, 3, 511--521. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Loui, M. C. 1980. Simulations among multidimensional Turing machines. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tech. rep. 242. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Maass, W. and Schorr, A. 1987. Speed-up of turing machines with one work tape and a two-way input tape. SIAM J. Comput. 16, 1, 195--202. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nepomnjascii, V. 1970. Rudimentary predicates and Turing calculations. Soviet Math. Doklady 11, 1462--1465.Google Scholar
- Paul, W. and Reischuk, R. 1981. On time versus space II. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 22, 312--327.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Paul, W., Pippenger, N., Szemeredi, E., and Trotter, W. 1983. On determinism versus nondeterminism and related problems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’83). 429--438. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Santhanam, R. 2001. Lower bounds on the complexity of recognizing SAT by Turing machines. Inf. Process. Lett. 79, 5, 243--247. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Schnorr, C. 1978. Satisfiability is quasilinear complete in NQL. J. ACM 25, 1, 136--145. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tourlakis, I. 2001. Time-space tradeoffs for SAT on nonuniform machines. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 2, 268--287.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- van Melkebeek, D. 2004. Time-space lower bounds for NP-complete problems. In Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, G. Paun, G. Rozenberg, and A. Salomaa Eds., World Scientific, 265--291.Google Scholar
- van Melkebeek, D. 2006. A survey of lower bounds for satisfiability and related problems. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 2, 3, 197--303. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- van Melkebeek, D. and Raz, R. 2005. A time lower bound for satisfiability. Theor. Comput. Sci. 348, 2--3, 311--320. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- van Melkebeek, D. and Watson, T. 2007. A quantum time-space lower bound for the counting hierarchy. Tech. rep. 1600, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
- Viola, E. 2007. On approximate majority and probabilistic time. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’07). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Williams, R. 2006. Inductive time-space lower bounds for SAT and related problems. J. Comput. Complex. 15, 433--470. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Williams, R. 2007. Algorithms and resource requirements for fundamental problems. Ph.D. thesis CMU-CS-07-147, Carnegie Mellon University. August. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Williams, R. 2008. Time-space tradeoffs for counting NP solutions modulo integers. J. Comput. Complex. 17, 2. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Alternation-Trading Proofs, Linear Programming, and Lower Bounds
Recommendations
Kernelization Lower Bounds Through Colors and IDs
In parameterized complexity, each problem instance comes with a parameter k, and a parameterized problem is said to admit a polynomial kernel if there are polynomial time preprocessing rules that reduce the input instance to an instance with size ...
Lower bounds on kernelization
Preprocessing (data reduction or kernelization) to reduce instance size is one of the most commonly deployed heuristics in the implementation practice to tackle computationally hard problems. However, a systematic theoretical study of them has remained ...
Lifting lower bounds for tree-like proofs
It is known that constant-depth Frege proofs of some tautologies require exponential size. No such lower bound result is known for more general proof systems. We consider tree-like sequent calculus proofs in which formulas can contain modular ...






Comments