Proof Complexity Meets Algebra
Albert Atserias, Joanna Ochremiak

TL;DR
This paper explores how algebraic and logical reductions between constraint satisfaction problems influence their proof complexity, establishing algebraic characterizations of classes with small refutations and analyzing the behavior of various proof systems.
Contribution
It demonstrates that key reductions preserve proof complexity across several proof systems and introduces a new proof system with desirable properties, advancing understanding of proof complexity in CSPs.
Findings
Classical reductions preserve proof complexity in propositional, algebraic, and semi-algebraic systems.
A gap theorem characterizes languages with constant-width resolution refutations versus those lacking subexponential-depth Frege refutations.
Bounded-degree Lovász-Schrijver proof system exhibits both good reduction behavior and small size refutations.
Abstract
We analyse how the standard reductions between constraint satisfaction problems affect their proof complexity. We show that, for the most studied propositional, algebraic, and semi-algebraic proof systems, the classical constructions of pp-interpretability, homomorphic equivalence and addition of constants to a core preserve the proof complexity of the CSP. As a result, for those proof systems, the classes of constraint languages for which small unsatisfiability certificates exist can be characterised algebraically. We illustrate our results by a gap theorem saying that a constraint language either has resolution refutations of constant width, or does not have bounded-depth Frege refutations of subexponential size. The former holds exactly for the widely studied class of constraint languages of bounded width. This class is also known to coincide with the class of languages with…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
