Proof Complexity Meets Algebra

Fix a set of propositional variables taking values true or false. A literal is a variable $X$ or the negation of a variable $\overline{X}$. We write propositional formulas out of literals using conjunctions $\wedge$, disjunctions $\vee$, and parentheses, with the usual conventions on parentheses. Also we implicitly think of $\wedge$ and $\vee$ as commutative, associative and idempotent. Thus the formula $A\wedge A$ is viewed literally the same as $A$, the formula $A\wedge B$ is viewed literally the same as $B\wedge A$, and the formula $(A\wedge B)\wedge C$ is viewed literally the same as $A\wedge(B\wedge C)$. The same applies to disjunctions. Negation is allowed only at the level of literals, so our formulas are written in negation normal form. If $A$ is a formula, we define its complement $\overline{A}$ inductively: if $A$ is a variable $X$, then $\overline{A}=\overline{X}$; if $A$ is a negated variable $\overline{X}$, then $\overline{A}=X$; if $A$ is a conjunction $C\wedge D$, then $\overline{A}=\overline{C}\vee\overline{D}$; if $A$ is a disjunction $C\vee D$, then $\overline{A}=\overline{C}\wedge\overline{D}$. The empty formula is denoted $0$ and is always false by convention. Its complement $\overline{0}$ is denoted $1$, and is always true by convention. We think of $0$ and $1$ as the neutral elements of $\vee$ and $\wedge$, respectively, and the absorbing elements of $\wedge$ and $\vee$, respectively. Thus we view the formulas $0\vee A$ and $1\wedge A$ as literally the same as $A$, and $0\wedge A$ and $1\vee A$ as literally the same as $0$ and $1$, respectively. The size $s(A)$ of a formula $A$ is defined inductively: if $A$ is $0$ or $1$, then $s(A)=0$; if $A$ is a literal, then $s(A)=1$; if $A$ is a conjunction $C\wedge D$ or a disjunction $C\vee D$ with non-absorbing and non-neutral $C$ and $D$, then $s(A)=s(C)+s(D)+1$.

We work with a Tait-style proof system for propositional logic that we call Frege. The system manipulates formulas in negation normal form and has the following four rules of inference called axiom, cut, introduction of conjunction, and weakening:

In these rules, $C$ and $D$ could be the empty formula $0$ or its complement $1$. In particular $1$ is an instance of an axiom rule. A Frege proof is called cut-free if it does not use the cut rule. A Frege proof from a set of formulas $F$ is a proof in which the formulas in $F$ are allowed as additional axioms. In case such a proof ends with the empty formula we call it a Frege refutation of $F$. As a proof system, Frege is sound and implicationally complete, which means that if $A$ is a logical consequence of $A_{1},\ldots,A_{m}$, then there is a Frege proof of $A$ from $A_{1},\ldots,A_{m}$. We will give a proof of this in Section 2.2 that will apply also to certain subsystems of Frege. If $\mathcal{C}$ is a class of formulas, a $\mathcal{C}$-Frege proof is one that has all its formulas in the class $\mathcal{C}$. The size of a proof is the sum of the sizes of the formulas in it. The length of a proof is the number of formulas in it.

A term is a conjunction of literals and a clause is a disjunction of literals. A $k$-term or a $k$-clause is one with at most $k$ literals. A $k$-DNF is a disjunction of $k$-terms and a $k$-CNF is a conjunction of $k$-clauses.

We define the classes of $\Sigma_{t,k}$- and $\Pi_{t,k}$-formulas inductively. For $t=1$, these are just the classes of $k$-DNF and $k$-CNF formulas, respectively. For $t\geq 2$, a formula is $\Sigma_{t,k}$ if it is a disjunction of $\Pi_{t-1,k}$-formulas, and it is $\Pi_{t,k}$ if it is a conjunction of $\Sigma_{t-1,k}$-formulas.

In this paper, we use the expression Frege proof of depth $t$ and bottom fan-in $k$to mean a $\Sigma_{t,k}$-Frege proof. Bounded-depth Frege means $\Sigma_{t,k}$-Frege for some fixed $t$ and $k$. This coincides with other definitions in the literature. Frege of depth $t$ and bottom fan-in $k$, as a proof system, is sound and implicationally complete for proving $\Sigma_{t,k}$-formulas from $\Sigma_{t,k}$-formulas. A proof of this will follow from the general completeness theorem below.

$\Sigma_{1,1}$ is the class of clauses. It is well-known that $\Sigma_{1,1}$-Frege and resolution proofs are basically the same thing (the difference is that in $\Sigma_{1,1}$-Frege proofs we allow clause axioms and weakening, but these can always be removed at no cost). A resolution proof which uses only $l$-clauses is called a proof of width $l$.

$\Sigma_{1,k}$-Frege, for $k\geq 2$, is the system $\mathrm{R}(k)$ introduced by Krajicek [36], also known as $\mathrm{Res}(k)$, $k$-DNF resolution, and $k$-DNF Frege. This family of proof systems is important for us because, by letting $k$ range over all constants (i.e., by considering $\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{const})$), it is the weakest for which we can prove closure under reductions.

We define everything for the real field $\mathbb{R}$ for simplicity. For algebraic proofs the field would not matter, but for semi-algebraic proofs we need an ordered field such as $\mathbb{R}$. Let $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ be $n$ algebraic commuting variables ranging over $\mathbb{R}$. We want to define proof systems that manipulate equations of the form $P=0$ and inequalities of the form $P\geq 0$, where $P$ is a polynomial in $\mathbb{R}[X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}]$, the ring of polynomials with commuting variables $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ and coefficients in $\mathbb{R}$. For our purposes it will suffice to assume that the variables range over $\{0,1\}$. Accordingly, it will also be convenient to introduce twin variables $\bar{X_{1}},\ldots,\bar{X_{n}}$ with the intended meaning that $\bar{X_{i}}=1-X_{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. In all proof systems of this section, the following axioms will be imposed on the variables:

Observe that $X_{i}\bar{X_{i}}=0$ follows from these axioms: multiply $X_{i}+\bar{X_{i}}-1=0$ by $X_{i}$ and subtract $X_{i}^{2}-X_{i}=0$. This sort of reasoning is captured by the proof systems we are about to define.

Let $P$ and $Q$ denote polynomials. In addition to the axioms in (2), consider the following inference rules called addition and multiplication:

Clearly, these rules are sound: any assignment $f:\{X_{1},\ldots,X_{n},\bar{X}_{1},\ldots,\bar{X}_{n}\}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ that satisfies the equations in the premises, also satisfies the equation in the conclusions. For semi-algebraic proofs we add the following axioms:

and the following inference rules for polynomial inequalities:

These rules are called addition, multiplication and positivity of squares and are also sound for assignments $f:\{X_{1},\ldots,X_{n},\bar{X}_{1},\ldots,\bar{X}_{n}\}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. One could also consider additional rules that link equalities with inequalities, such as deriving $P\geq 0$ from $P=0$, or deriving $P=0$ from $P\geq 0$ and $-P\geq 0$, but if we think of an equality as two inequalities, then they are not strictly necessary. On the other hand, some of the axioms are redundant, such as $1\geq 0$ which can be obtained from adding $X_{i}\geq 0$ and $1-X_{i}\geq 0$, but for the sake of clarity in writing proofs we prefer to keep them.

If $H$ denotes a system of polynomial equations $P_{1}=0,\ldots,P_{r}=0$ and $P=0$ is a further equation, an algebraic proof of $P=0$ from $H$ is a sequence of polynomial equations ending with $P=0$ where each equation in the proof is either a hypothesis equation from $H$, or an axiom equation as in (2), or follows from previous equations in the sequence by one of the inference rules in (3). If $H$ in addition includes a system of polynomial inequalities $Q_{1}\geq 0,\ldots,Q_{s}\geq 0$, then a semi-algebraic proof of $Q\geq 0$ from $H$ is defined analogously except that we think of each equation as two inequalities, we use additionally the axioms in (4), and we use additionally the rules in (5). Note that by writing $Q=Q^{+}-Q^{-}$, where $Q^{+}$ and $Q^{-}$ have only positive coefficients, the rules in (3) are actually easily simulated by the rules in (5) (for the multiplication rule, this uses also the axioms in (4)). If an algebraic proof ends with the equation $1=0$, or similarly if a semi-algebraic proof ends with the inequality $-1\geq 0$, we call it a refutation of $H$.

As proof systems for deriving new polynomial equations or inequalities that follow from old ones on all evaluations of their variables in $\{0,1\}$, both systems are sound and implicationally complete (we note, however, that without some restrictions on the domain of evaluation, such as $\{0,1\}$ in our case, the completeness claim is not true). In Section 2.4 below we will prove implicational completeness for two subsystems of algebraic and semi-algebraic proofs, and hence for algebraic and semi-algebraic proofs themselves.

The main complexity measures for algebraic and semi-algebraic proofs are size and degree. Size is measured by the number of symbols it takes to write the representations of the polynomials in the proofs, and degree is the maximum of the total degrees of the polynomials in the proofs. Polynomials are typically represented as explicit sums of monomials, or as algebraic formulas or circuits. Using formulas or circuits as representations requires some additional technicalities in the definitions of the rules, that we want to avoid (see [42, 29]). For all our examples below, we use the representation of an explicit sum of monomials.

The proofs in the Polynomial Calculus (PC) are algebraic proofs restricted in such a way that the polynomial $Q$ in the multiplication rule in (3) is either a scalar or a variable [24]. In the literature, this has been called PCR for PC with resolution (see [2]), due to the presence of twin variables, but in recent works the shorter original name PC is used. As pointed out earlier, algebraic proofs can be defined over arbitrary scalar-fields $F$ beyond the real-field $\mathbb{R}$. A claim about algebraic proofs in which the field is omitted is meant to hold for all fields simultaneously. Whenever we need to specify the field $F$, we speak of algebraic and PC proofs over $F$.

The proofs in the Lovász-Schrijver (LS) proof system are semi-algebraic proofs for which the following restrictions apply: 1) the polynomial $Q$ in the multiplication rule in (5) is either a positive scalar or a variable, and 2) the positivity-of-squares rule in (5) is not allowed. When the positivity-of-squares is also allowed, the system is called Positive Semidefinite Lovász-Schrijver and is denoted LS⁺. Originally the Lovász-Schrijver proof system was defined to manipulate quadratic polynomials only (see [41, 43]). We follow [30] and consider the extension to arbitrary degree. For the original Lovász-Schrijver proof systems we use LS₂ and LS${}_{2}^{+}$. Degree-$d$ Lovász-Schrijver and degree-$d$ Positive Semidefinite Lovász-Schrijver are denoted LS_d and LS${}_{d}^{+}$, respectively. For LS and LS⁺ proofs, an important complexity measure originally studied by Lovász and Schrijver is their rank, which is the maximum nesting depth of multiplication by a variable in the proof. Note that, due to possible cancellations, the degree of an LS proof could in principle be much smaller than its rank.

We define four additional proof systems called Nullstellensatz (NS), Sherali-Adams (SA), Positive Semidefinite Sherali-Adams (SA⁺), and Lasserre/Sums-of-Squares (SOS). For NS, SA and SA⁺, we define them as the subsystems of PC, LS and LS⁺, respectively, in which all applications of the multiplication rule must precede all applications of the addition rule. Due to the structural restriction in which multiplications precede additions, we can think of a proof from a set $H$ of hypotheses as a static polynomial identity of the form

where $P_{1},\ldots,P_{r}$ are polynomials that either come from the set $H$ of hypotheses, or they are axiom polynomials from the lists in (2) and (4) as appropriate (i.e., from (2) for NS, and from both (2) and (4) for SA and SA⁺), or are squares of polynomials when they are allowed (i.e., for SA⁺), and $c_{1},\ldots,c_{r}$ are scalars of the appropriate type (i.e., arbitrary when the $P_{i}$ they multiply comes from an equation, or positive when the $P_{i}$ they multiply comes from an inequality). Finally we define Lasserre/Sums-of-Squares proof system as the subsystem of semi-algebraic proofs to which the following restrictions apply: 1) the polynomial $Q$ is arbitrary in the multiplication rule in (3) and it is a square polynomial in the multiplication rule in (5), and 2) all multiplications precede all additions. Thus, in terms of static identities, these are proofs of the form

where $P_{1},\ldots,P_{r}$ are polynomials that either come from the set $H$ of hypotheses, or they are axiom polynomials from the lists (2) and (4), or they are squares, and $S_{1},\ldots,S_{r}$ are arbitrary polynomials or square polynomials as appropriate (i.e., arbitrary if the $P_{i}$ they multiply comes from an equation, and squares if the $P_{i}$ they multiply comes from an inequality). Note that the size of an NS, SA, SA⁺ or SOS proof is polynomially related to the sum of the sizes of the non-zero $c_{i}$’s and $S_{i}$’s in the corresponding static identities (6) and (7). Non-static proofs are sometimes called dynamic [30]. We will avoid using this term here.

We close this section by noting the relationships between these proof systems. Clearly, every NS proof of degree $d$ is also a PC proof of degree $d$. The converse is certainly not true, but what is true is that every PC proof of degree $d$ and rank $k$ can be converted into an NS proof of degree $d+k$, where the rank of a PC proof is the analogue of the rank measure for LS proofs that we defined earlier. The same relationships hold between SA and LS, and SA⁺ and LS⁺. In all three cases, the conversions go by swapping the order in which the addition and the multiplication rules are applied, when they appear in the wrong order. Also, every NS proof over the reals is an SA proof, which is an SA⁺ proof. Finally, thanks to the axioms (2), each SA⁺ proof can be easily converted to an SOS proof of twice the degree: replace each multiplication by a variable $X$ by a multiplication by $X^{2}$, and subtract the appropriate multiple of the axiom $X^{2}-X=0$ to effectively simulate the multiplication by $X$. See [39] for a related discussion.

The polynomial identity interpretations of NS, SA, SA⁺ and SOS, c.f., (6) and (7), are closely related to the original definitions by Beame et al. [15] for NS, and the settings of Sherali and Adams [46] and Lasserre [38] for SA and SOS, respectively. In most incarnations of these proof systems the twin variables are not present; in some others they are (e.g., [9]). If we care only about degree, the presence of twin variables makes no difference at all for Nullstellensatz since we can always simulate a multiplication by $\bar{X}_{i}$ by subtracting a multiplication by $X_{i}$. Note, however, that this blows up the size exponentially in the degree. In order to make sense of Sherali-Adams without twin variables, we need to extend the definition to allow $Q$ in the multiplication rule to be, besides a positive scalar or a variable $X_{i}$, a linear polynomial of the form $1-X_{i}$. The static form of such a proof is an identity such as

where $P^{\prime}_{1},\ldots,P^{\prime}_{r}$ and $P^{\prime}$ are polynomials as in (6), but without twin variables. If $P^{\prime}_{1},\ldots,P^{\prime}_{r}$ and $P^{\prime}$ denote the polynomials over $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ that result from the polynomials $P_{1},\ldots,P_{r}$ and $P$ over $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n},\bar{X}_{1},\ldots,\bar{X}_{n}$ when each twin variable $\bar{X}_{i}$ is replaced by $1-X_{i}$, then any valid proof with twin variables as in (6) transforms into a valid proof without twin variables as in (8). Thus, if we care only about degree, the versions of Sherali-Adams and Positive Semidefinite Sherali-Adams without twin variables simulate the versions with twin variables, for polynomials without twin variables. As for Nullstellensatz the size could blow up exponentially in the degree. The same facts are true for Sums-of-Squares.

Two further comments are in order. For Nullstellensatz, one could consider an alternative definition in which proofs are polynomial identities of the form $\sum_{i}P_{i}\cdot R_{i}=P$, where the $P_{i}$ are hypotheses or axiom polynomials, and the $R_{i}$ are arbitrary polynomials. However this difference is minor since we can always write each $R_{i}$ as a combination of monomials $\sum_{j}c_{ij}M_{ij}$ and split $P_{i}\cdot R_{i}$ into $\sum_{j}P_{i}\cdot c_{ij}M_{ij}$. Second, one could consider the version of Sums-of-Squares in which in addition to squares $S_{i}$ as in (7), one is also allowed multiplication by variables. As noted earlier, such multiplications by a variable $X$ can be simulated by multiplications by their squares $X^{2}$, thanks to the axioms $X^{2}-X=0$ from (2), at the cost of at most doubling the degree, and blowing up the size at most polynomially.