We prove that there exists a deterministic configuration of Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) SAT solvers using a variant of the VSIDS branching heuristic that solves instances of the Ordering Principle (OP) CNF formulas in time polynomial in n, where n is the number of variables in such formulas. Since tree-like resolution is known to have an exponential lower bound for proof size for OP formulas, it follows that CDCL under this configuration has an exponential separation with any solver that is polynomially equivalent to tree-like resolution and therefore any configuration of DPLL SAT solvers.

In their seminal work, Atserias et al. and independently Pipatsrisawat and Darwiche in 2009 showed that CDCL solvers can simulate resolution proofs with polynomial overhead. However, previous work does not address the tightness of the simulation, i.e., the question of how large this overhead needs to be. In this paper, we address this question by focusing on an important property of proofs generated by CDCL solvers that employ standard learning schemes, namely that the derivation of a learned clause has at least one inference where a literal appears in both premises (aka, a merge literal). Specifically, we show that proofs of this kind can simulate resolution proofs with at most a linear overhead, but there also exist formulas where such overhead is necessary or, more precisely, that there exist formulas with resolution proofs of linear length that require quadratic CDCL proofs.

We study the MaxSAT Resolution (MaxRes) rule in the context of certifying unsatisfiability. We show that it can be exponentially more powerful than tree-like resolution, and when augmented with weakening (the system MaxResW), p -simulates tree-like resolution. In devising a lower bound technique specific to MaxRes (and not merely inheriting lower bounds from Res), we define a new proof system called the SubCubeSums proof system. This system, which p -simulates MaxResW, can be viewed as a special case of the semi-algebraic Sherali–Adams proof system. In expressivity, it is the integral restriction of conical juntas studied in the contexts of communication complexity and extension complexity. We show that it is not simulated by Res. Using a proof technique qualitatively different from the lower bounds that MaxResW inherits from Res, we show that Tseitin contradictions on expander graphs are hard to refute in SubCubeSums. We also establish a lower bound technique via lifting: for formulas requiring large degree in SubCubeSums, their XOR-ification requires large size in SubCubeSums.

We extend the definitions of complexity measures of functions to domains such as the symmetric group. The complexity measures we consider include degree, approximate degree, decision tree complexity, sensitivity, block sensitivity, and a few others. We show that these complexity measures are polynomially related for the symmetric group and for many other domains. To show that all measures but sensitivity are polynomially related, we generalize classical arguments of Nisan and others. To add sensitivity to the mix, we reduce to Huang’s sensitivity theorem using "pseudo-characters", which witness the degree of a function. Using similar ideas, we extend the characterization of Boolean degree 1 functions on the symmetric group due to Ellis, Friedgut and Pilpel to the perfect matching scheme. As another application of our ideas, we simplify the characterization of maximum-size t-intersecting families in the symmetric group and the perfect matching scheme.

The CDCL algorithm for SAT is equivalent to the resolution proof system under a few assumptions, one of them being an optimal non-deterministic procedure for choosing the next variable to branch on. In practice this task is left to a variable decision heuristic, and since the so-called VSIDS decision heuristic is considered an integral part of CDCL, whether CDCL with a VSIDS-like heuristic is also equivalent to resolution remained a significant open question.We give a negative answer by building a family of formulas that have resolution proofs of polynomial size but require exponential time to decide in CDCL with common heuristics such as VMTF, CHB, and certain implementations of VSIDS and LRB.

We significantly strengthen and generalize the theorem lifting Nullstellensatz degree to monotone span program size by Pitassi and Robere (2018) so that it works for any gadget with high enough rank, in particular, for useful gadgets such as equality and greater-than. We apply our generalized theorem to solve three open problems: ; We present the first result that demonstrates a separation in proof power for cutting planes with unbounded versus polynomially bounded coefficients. Specifically, we exhibit CNF formulas that can be refuted in quadratic length and constant line space in cutting planes with unbounded coefficients, but for which there are no refutations in subexponential length and subpolynomial line space if coefficients are restricted to be of polynomial magnitude. : We give the first explicit separation between monotone Boolean formulas and monotone real formulas. Specifically, we give an explicit family of functions that can be computed with monotone real formulas of nearly linear size but require monotone Boolean formulas of exponential size. Previously only a non-explicit separation was known. : We give the strongest separation to-date between monotone Boolean formulas and monotone Boolean circuits. Namely, we show that the classical GEN problem, which has polynomial-size monotone Boolean circuits, requires monotone Boolean formulas of size 2Ω(n/polylog(n)). An important technical ingredient, which may be of independent interest, is that we show that the Nullstellensatz degree of refuting the pebbling formula over a DAG G over any field coincides exactly with the reversible pebbling price of G. In particular, this implies that the standard decision tree complexity and the parity decision tree complexity of the corresponding falsified clause search problem are equal. This is an extended abstract. The full version of the paper is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02144.

The canonical problem that gives an exponential separation between deterministic and randomized communication complexity in the classical two-party communication model is "Equality". In this work we show that even allowing access to an "Equality" oracle, deterministic protocols remain exponentially weaker than randomized ones. More precisely, we exhibit a total function on n bits with randomized one-sided communication complexity O(log n), but such that every deterministic protocol with access to "Equality" oracle needs Omega(n) cost to compute it. Additionally we exhibit a natural and strict infinite hierarchy within BPP, starting with the class P^{EQ} at its bottom.

We study space complexity and time-space trade-offs with a focus not on peak memory usage but on overall memory consumption throughout the computation. Such a cumulative space measure was introduced for the computational model of parallel black pebbling by [Alwen and Serbinenko 2015] as a tool for obtaining results in cryptography. We consider instead the nondeterministic black-white pebble game and prove optimal cumulative space lower bounds and trade-offs, where in order to minimize pebbling time the space has to remain large during a significant fraction of the pebbling. We also initiate the study of cumulative space in proof complexity, an area where other space complexity measures have been extensively studied during the last 10-15 years. Using and extending the connection between proof complexity and pebble games in [Ben-Sasson and Nordström 2008, 2011], we obtain several strong cumulative space results for (even parallel versions of) the resolution proof system, and outline some possible future directions of study of this, in our opinion, natural and interesting space measure.

We obtain the first true size-space trade-offs for the cutting planes proof system, where the upper bounds hold for size and total space for derivations with constantsize coefficients, and the lower bounds apply to length and formula space (i.e., number of inequalities in memory) even for derivations with exponentially large coefficients. These are also the first trade-offs to hold uniformly for resolution, polynomial calculus and cutting planes, thus capturing the main methods of reasoning used in current state-of-the-art SAT solvers. We prove our results by a reduction to communication lower bounds in a round-efficient version of the real communication model of [Kraj́ĩcek '98], drawing on and extending techniques in [Raz and McKenzie '99] and [G̈öos et al. '15]. The communication lower bounds are in turn established by a reduction to trade-offs between cost and number of rounds in the game of [Dymond and Tompa '85] played on directed acyclic graphs. As a by-product of the techniques developed to show these proof complexity trade-off results, we also obtain an exponential separation between monotone-ACi-1and monotone-ACi, improving exponentially over the superpolynomial separation in [Raz and McKenzie '99]. That is, we give an explicit Boolean function that can be computed by monotone Boolean circuits of depth login and polynomial size, but for which circuits of depth O(logi-1n) require exponential size.

We consider the pebble game on DAGs with bounded fan-in introduced in [Paterson and Hewitt '70] and the reversible version of this game in [Bennett '89], and study the question of how hard it is to decide exactly or approximately the number of pebbles needed for a given DAG in these games. We prove that the problem of deciding whether s pebbles suffice to reversibly pebble a DAG G is PSPACE-complete, as was previously shown for the standard pebble game in [Gilbert, Lengauer and Tarjan '80]. Via two different graph product constructions we then strengthen these results to establish that both standard and reversible pebbling space are PSPACE-hard to approximate to within any additive constant. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first hardness of approximation results for pebble games in an unrestricted setting (even for polynomial time). Also, since [Chan '13] proved that reversible pebbling is equivalent to the games in [Dymond and Tompa '85] and [Raz and McKenzie '99], our results apply to the Dymond -- Tompa and Raz -- McKenzie games as well, and from the same paper it follows that resolution depth is PSPACE-hard to determine up to any additive constant. We also obtain a multiplicative logarithmic separation between reversible and standard pebbling space. This improves on the additive logarithmic separation previously known and could plausibly be tight, although we are not able to prove this. We leave as an interesting open problem whether our additive hardness of approximation result could be strengthened to a multiplicative bound if the computational resources are decreased from polynomial space to the more common setting of polynomial time.

In 2003, Atserias and Dalmau resolved a major open question about the resolution proof system by establishing that the space complexity of a Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) formula is always an upper bound on the width needed to refute the formula. Their proof is beautiful but uses a nonconstructive argument based on Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games. We give an alternative, more explicit, proof that works by simple syntactic manipulations of resolution refutations. As a by-product, we develop a “black-box” technique for proving space lower bounds via a “static” complexity measure that works against any resolution refutation—previous techniques have been inherently adaptive. We conclude by showing that the related question for polynomial calculus (i.e., whether space is an upper bound on degree) seems unlikely to be resolvable by similar methods.

In 2003, Atserias and Dalmau resolved a major open question about the resolution proof system by establishing that the space complexity of formulas is always an upper bound on the width needed to refute them. Their proof is beautiful but somewhat mysterious in that it relies heavily on tools from finite model theory. We give an alternative, completely elementary, proof that works by simple syntactic manipulations of resolution refutations. As a by-product, we develop a "black-box" technique for proving space lower bounds via a "static" complexity measure that works against any resolution refutation -- previous techniques have been inherently adaptive. We conclude by showing that the related question for polynomial calculus (i.e., whether space is an upper bound on degree) seems unlikely to be resolvable by similar methods.