Atserias Oberwolfach2017

SELECTED TOPICS ON
SEMI-ALGEBRAIC
PROOF COMPLEXITY
1 2
2X + 12 Y 2 − XY = 21 (X − Y )2
Albert Atserias
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
Barcelona
Subsets of {0, 1}n defined by polynomial inequalities
Variables:
X1 , . . . , Xn and X 1 , . . . , X n
Polynomial inequalities (coefficients in R):
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pm ≥ 0
Axioms:
Xi ≥ 0 Xi2 − Xi = 0
1 − Xi ≥ 0 1 − Xi − X i = 0
Obviously positive polynomials
Squares:
Q2
Non-negative juntas (nn-juntas):

X Y Y
aI,J Xi Xj
I,J⊆K i∈I j∈J
I∩J=∅
where K ⊆ [n] and aI,J ≥ 0 for all I, J ⊆ K with I ∩ J = ∅.

Obviously positive polynomials
Squares:
Q2
Non-negative juntas (nn-juntas):

X Y Y
aI,J Xi Xj
I,J⊆K i∈I j∈J
I∩J=∅
where K ⊆ [n] and aI,J ≥ 0 for all I, J ⊆ K with I ∩ J = ∅.
Sums of such things:
sos: “sums of squares”

sosonnj: “sums of squares or nn-juntas”
Inferences
given
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pm ≥ 0
and
Q0 , Q1 , . . . , Qm that are sums of squares or nn-juntas

with
Q0 + P1 Q1 + · · · + Pm Qm = P
infer
P ≥ 0.
degree of the inference:
max{deg(Q0 ), deg(Pi Qi ) : i = 1, . . . , m}
Proof systems for this talk
LS: twin variables, Boolean axioms, and sums of nn-juntas only.

LS+ : twin variables, Boolean axioms, and sosonnj.

Proofs:
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pt ≥ 0
where each Pi ≥ 0 is
a) an axiom, or
b) a given inequality, or
c) is derived by an inference.

Proofs:
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pt ≥ 0
where each Pi ≥ 0 is
a) an axiom, or
b) a given inequality, or
c) is derived by an inference.
Refutations:
proofs of unsatisfiability ≡ derivations of −1 ≥ 0

Shape of a proof
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pt ≥ 0
DAG TREE STAR
Dag-like: unrestricted shape, as long as acyclic.

Tree-like: tree; derived inequalities are used at most once.
Star-like (aka static): star; a single inference.
Complexity measures of a proof
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pt ≥ 0
Measures:
Size: bit-size of all coefficients (explicit sums of monomials),

Monomial size: number of monomials,
Length: number of inequalities,
Degree: largest degree of all polynomials and inferences.
Height: longest path from an assumption to the conclusion.
Complexity measures of a proof
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pt ≥ 0
Measures:
Size: bit-size of all coefficients (explicit sums of monomials),

Monomial size: number of monomials,
Length: number of inequalities,
Degree: largest degree of all polynomials and inferences.
Height: longest path from an assumption to the conclusion.
Notation:
P1 ≥ 0, . . . , Pm ≥ 0 `H
D P ≥0
Notes
Original Lovasz-Schrijver ≡ dag-like degree-2 LS and LS+

Notes
Sherali-Adams ≡ star-like LS
Lasserre/SOS ≡ star-like LS+

Notes
Sherali-Adams ≡ star-like LS
Lasserre/SOS ≡ star-like LS+
A `H 1
D B =⇒ A `HD B
Dual view of inferences
Degree-d pseudoexpectations for LS:
Ed (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

1. E(1) = 1,
2. E(Q) ≥ 0 for nn-junta Q with deg(Q) ≤ d,
3. E(P Q) ≥ 0 for P ∈ S , and nn-junta Q with deg(P Q) ≤ d.

1. E(1) = 1,
Theorem:
max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS } = min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed (S) }


1. E(1) = 1,
Theorem:
max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS } = min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed (S) }
Corollary:
If Ed+ (S) 6= ∅ then S 6`1d −1 ≥ 0 in LS.

Degree-d pseudoexpectations for LS+ :
Ed+ (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

1. E(1) = 1,
2. E(Q) ≥ 0 for square/nnj Q with deg(Q) ≤ d,
3. E(P Q) ≥ 0 for P ∈ S and square/nnj Q with deg(P Q) ≤ d.

1. E(1) = 1,
Theorem:
max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS+ } ≤ min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed+ (S) }


1. E(1) = 1,
Theorem:
max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS+ } ≤ min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed+ (S) }
Corollary:
If Ed+ (S) 6= ∅ then S 6`1d −1 ≥ 0 in LS+ .

Some upper bounds
1. basic counting: pigeonhole principle

2. advanced counting: expansion of the noisy hypercube
Basic counting in LS
From
Xi + Xj ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j

it is possible to derive
X1 + · · · + Xn ≤ 1
in size-O(n3 ) degree-2 height-2n LS
Basic counting (from 2 to 3)
From
X +Y ≤1
Y +Z ≤1
X +Z ≤1
X +Y +Z ≤1
in size-O(1) degree-2 height-2 LS.
[exercise]
Basic counting (from k to k + 1)
From
Xi + Xi+1 + · · · + Xi+k−1 ≤1
Xi+1 + · · · + Xi+k−1 + Xi+k ≤ 1
Xi + Xi+k ≤ 1
Xi + Xi+1 + · · · + Xi+k−1 + Xi+k ≤ 1

in size-O(k) degree-2 height-2 LS.
[mimic the 2-to-3 derivation]

Pigeonhole principle
From
Xi,k + Xj,k ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j, k ∈ [n − 1]

Xi,1 + · · · + Xi,n−1 ≥ 1 for all i ∈ [n]
−1 ≥ 0
From

Xi,1 + · · · + Xi,n−1 ≥ 1 for all i ∈ [n]
−1 ≥ 0

From

Xi,1 + · · · + Xi,n−1 ≥ 1 for all i ∈ [n]
−1 ≥ 0

and also
in size-O(n4 ) degree-2n height-1 LS
From

Xi,1 + · · · + Xi,n−1 ≥ 1 for all i ∈ [n]
−1 ≥ 0

and also
in size-O(n4 ) degree-2n height-1 LS (relies on twin variables!)
Tightness (up to constants)
Theorem:
Every height-1 LS-refutation of PHPnn−1 has degree ≥ n.

Every degree-2 LS-refutation PHPnn−1 has height ≥ n/2.
Lower bound for PHPnn−1
Define a degree-(n − 1) pseudoexpectation for LS:
d
Y
E Xic``,j` := ?
`=1
d
Y
E Xic``,j` := ?
`=1
1. choose i∗ ∈ [n] − {i1 , . . . , id } arbitrarily (use d ≤ n − 1)

d
Y
E Xic``,j` := ?
`=1

1−1
2. consider 1-1 maps α : [n] − {i∗ } −→ [n − 1]
d
Y
E Xic``,j` := ?
`=1

1−1
2. consider 1-1 maps α : [n] − {i∗ } −→ [n − 1]
3. define
d
Y h i
E Xic``,j` := Pr α(i1 ) = j1 , . . . , α(id ) = jd
α
`=1
with α chosen u.a.r. as in 2.

Basic counting in LS+
Lemma:
There is a size-O(n2 ) degree-2 height-1 LS+ -derivation of

X1 + · · · + Xn ≤ 1 from Xi + Xj ≤ 1
Lemma:

X1 + · · · + Xn ≤ 1 from Xi + Xj ≤ 1
X X X 2
(1 − Xi − Xj )Xj + (n − 2) (Xi2 − Xi ) + 1 − Xi
i6=j i i
=
X
1− Xi
i
Lemma:

X1 + · · · + Xn ≤ 1 from Xi + Xj ≤ 1
X X X 2
(1 − Xi − Xj )Xj + (n − 2) (Xi2 − Xi ) + 1 − Xi
i6=j i i
=
X
1− Xi
i
Corollary:
There is a size-O(n3 ) degree-2 height-1 LS+ -refutation of PHPnn−1 .

Advanced counting: SSE of δ -noisy hypercube
Vertices:
V := {+1, −1}m
Edge-weights:

W (a, b) := Pr u = a and v = b
u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
Vertices:
V := {+1, −1}m
Edge-weights:

u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
Note:
|A|
W (A, B) = E A(u)B(v) ] and W (A, V ) =
u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
2m
Vertices:
V := {+1, −1}m
Edge-weights:

u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
Note:
|A|
W (A, B) = E A(u)B(v) ] and W (A, V ) =
u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
2m
Theorem: r !
|A| 1+δ |A|
W (A, A) ≥ m 1−
2 2m
Motivation
Small-Set Expansion (SSE(,δ ) Problem):
Given a weighted n-vertex regular graph G = (V, E, W ),

distinguish between:
YES: all A ⊆ V with |A| = δn have W (A, A) ≥ (1 − )δ ,

NO: exists A ⊆ V with |A| = δn such that W (A, A) ≤ δ .
Motivation


SSE Hypothesis:
∀ > 0 ∃δ > 0 s.t. SSE(,δ ) is NP-hard.

Motivation


SSE Hypothesis:
∀ > 0 ∃δ > 0 s.t. SSE(,δ ) is NP-hard.
Question:
Noisy hypercube is a YES instance.

Can low-degree SOS certify so?
Version to be proved in SOS
Case δ = 1/3 of SSE:

r !
|A| 4
3 |A|
W (A, A) ≥ m 1−
2 2m

r !
|A| 4
3 |A|
W (A, A) ≥ m 1−
2 2m
We’ll prove:

|A| 3 1 |A|
W (A, A) ≤ m + 3 m for all > 0
2 4 4 2

r !
|A| 4
3 |A|
W (A, A) ≥ m 1−
2 2m
We’ll prove:

|A| 3 1 |A|
W (A, A) ≤ m + 3 m for all > 0
2 4 4 2
p
which, by choosing = 4
|A|/2m , implies:
r !
|A| 4 |A|
W (A, A) ≥ m 1−
2 2m
Statement of small-set expansion
If Xa ≡ “a is in the set A”, then
XX |A| X 1
W (A, A) = W (a, b)Xa Xb and = Xa
2m 2m
a∈V b∈V a∈V
Statement of small-set expansion
If Xa ≡ “a is in the set A”, then
XX |A| X 1
W (A, A) = W (a, b)Xa Xb and = Xa
2m 2m
a∈V b∈V a∈V
Theorem: For every > 0,

! !!
XX X 1 3 1 X 1
W (a, b)Xa Xb ≤ Xa + 3 Xa
2m 4 4 2m
a∈V b∈V a∈V a∈V
has a size-2O(m) degree-8 height-1 LS+ -derivation.

How is it proved?
by induction on m
and Cauchy-Schwartz
(and, believe it or not, that’s it)
XY ≤ 12 X 2 + 21 Y 2
or
1 2
2X + 21 Y 2 − XY = 12 (X − Y )2
How is it proved?
by induction on m
and Cauchy-Schwartz
(and, believe it or not, that’s it)
XY ≤ 12 X 2 + 21 Y 2
or
1 2
2X + 21 Y 2 − XY = 12 (X − Y )2
X 3 Y ≤ 34 X 4 + 14 Y 4
or
3 4
4X + 41 Y 4 − X 3 Y = 12 X 2 (X − Y )2 + 14 (X 2 − Y 2 )2
Human-readable proof

W (A, A) = E A(u)A(v) ]
u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)

W (A, A) = E A(u)A(v) ] = E A(u)Tδ A(u) ]
u∼V u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)

u∼V u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
3 1
E A(u)2 + 3 E (Tδ A(u))4

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V

u∼V u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
3 1
E A(u)2 + 3 E (Tδ A(u))4

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V
3 1 2
E A(u)2 + 3 E A(u)2

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V

u∼V u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
3 1
E A(u)2 + 3 E (Tδ A(u))4

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V
3 1 2
E A(u)2 + 3 E A(u)2

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V
2
3 1 2

= E A(u) + 3 E A(u)
u∼V 4 4 u∼V

u∼V u∼V
v∼Nδ (u)
3 1
E A(u)2 + 3 E (Tδ A(u))4

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V
3 1 2
E A(u)2 + 3 E A(u)2

≤
4 u∼V 4 u∼V
2
3 1 2

= E A(u) + 3 E A(u)
u∼V 4 4 u∼V
2-to-4 hypercontractivity; two-function version:
h i
(Tδ F (u))2 (Tδ G(u))2 F (u)2 G(u)2

E ≤ E E
u∼V u∼V u∼V
Roadmap for rest of the talk
1. size-degree trade-offs
2. expanding systems of parity equations
3. interpolation
4. some open problems
5. credit
Trade-offs
Let F be an unsatisfiable 3-CNF on N variables.

Then:
p 2
D = O( N log(S)) or S = 2Ω(D /N )
Trade-offs

Then:
p 2
D = O( N log(S)) or S = 2Ω(D /N )
for Resolution:
S : minimum length of resolution refutations of F

D: minimum width of resolution refutation of F
Trade-offs

Then:
p 2
D = O( N log(S)) or S = 2Ω(D /N )
for Resolution:
S : minimum length of resolution refutations of F

D: minimum width of resolution refutation of F
for PC:
S : minimum monomial-size of PC refutations of F

D: minimum degree of PC refutations of F
Size-degree trade-off for height-1 LS
Theorem: For height-1 LS-refutations of a 3-CNF F we have

√ 2 /N )
D = O( N log S) or S = 2Ω(D
where
S : minimum monomial-size of height-1 LS-refutations of F

D: minimum degree of height-1 LS-refutations of F
Sanity checks
Check 1:
S of EPHPnn−1 is O(n4 )
D of EPHPnn−1 is n
BUT
N of EPHPnn−1 is ≥ n2 .
Sanity checks
Check 1:
S of EPHPnn−1 is O(n4 )
D of EPHPnn−1 is n
BUT
N of EPHPnn−1 is ≥ n2 .
Check 2:
S of G-PHPnn−1 is O(n4 )
N of G-PHPnn−1 is ≤ n · maxdeg(G)
BUT
D of G-PHPnn−1 is O(maxdeg(G)) [exercise]
Proof of size-degree trade-off
Proof strategy:
refutation of F with ≤ S many monomials of degree ≥ D

⇓
refutation of F with degree ≤ D + (N/D) ln(S)
Proof of size-degree trade-off
Proof strategy:

⇓
Once this is proved, set:

p
D= N ln(S)
The inductive argument
Proof by induction on N :

⇓

⇓
1. Start at a refutation Π with exactly T ≤ S monomials of degree ≥ D.


⇓

2. Find a variable X that appears ≥ DT /N many such monomials.

⇓

3. Apply induction hypothesis to Π|X=0 and Π|X=1 .

⇓

4. (note: Π|X=0 has ≤ T (1 − D/N ) ≤ S(1 − D/N ) such monomials).

⇓

5. (note: Π|X=1 has still ≤ T ≤ S such monomials).

⇓

6. I.H. for F |X=0 gives degree ≤ D + (N/D) ln(S) − 1.

⇓

7. I.H. for F |X=1 gives degree ≤ D + (N/D) ln(S).

⇓

7. I.H. for F |X=1 gives degree ≤ D + (N/D) ln(S).
8. Combine into degree ≤ D + (N/D) ln(S) for F .
Combination lemma
Combination lemma:
Combination lemma
Combination lemma:
F |X=0 ` −1 ≥ 0 degree-(D − 1), height-1

F |X=1 ` −1 ≥ 0 degree-D, height-1
Combination lemma
Combination lemma:

F ` X≥ degree-(D − 1), height-1, for some > 0

F ` X ≤1−δ degree-D, height-1, for some δ > 0
Combination lemma
Combination lemma:


F ` XX ≥ X degree-D, height-1
F ` X ≤ (1 − δ) degree-D, height-1
Combination lemma
Combination lemma:


F ` XX ≥ δ degree-D, height-1
Combination lemma
Combination lemma:


F ` XX ≥ δ degree-D, height-1
F ` 0 ≥ δ degree-D, height-1
Unrestricting lemma
Unrestricting lemma:
F |X=0 `1D −1 ≥ 0
⇓
F ∪ {X ≤ 0} `1D −1 ≥ 0
⇓
min{E(X) : E ∈ ED (F )} > 0
⇓
max{c : F `1D X ≥ c} > 0
Unrestricting lemma
Unrestricting lemma:
F |X=0 `1D −1 ≥ 0 F |X=1 `1D −1 ≥ 0

⇓ ⇓
F ∪ {X ≤ 0} `1D −1 ≥ 0 F ∪ {X ≥ 1} `1D −1 ≥ 0
⇓ ⇓
min{E(X) : E ∈ ED (F )} > 0 max{E(X) : E ∈ ED (F )} < 1
⇓ ⇓
max{c : F `1D X ≥ c} > 0 min{c : F `1D X ≥ c} < 1
Consequences: l.b.’s for tree-like LS
Corollary (if done carefully):

Setting
L: minimum length of tree-like degree-2 LS-refutations of F

D: minimum degree of height-1 LS-refutation of F
we have
√ 2 /N )
D = O( N log L) or L = 2Ω(D
Feasible interpolation
Problem statement:
Feasible interpolation
Problem statement:
Given a refutation of
A0 (a, y0 ) ∧ A1 (a, y1 )
find i ∈ {0, 1} so that
Ai (a, yi ) is unsatisfiable.
Feasible interpolation for degree-2 LS
The goal is to convert
K1 (y) + L1 (z) + c1 ≥ 0
K2 (y) + L2 (z) + c2 ≥ 0
..
.
cm ≥ 0
into
K1 (y) + a1 ≥ 0 L1 (z) + b1 ≥ 0
K2 (y) + a2 ≥ 0 L2 (z) + b2 ≥ 0
.. ..
. .
am ≥ 0 bm ≥ 0
where
ci = ai + bi for all i = 1, . . . , m.
One inference step:
P 1
c · (Ki (y) + Li (z) + ci ) · y j +
Pi,j 2i
c · (Ki (y) + Li (z) + ci ) · ȳ j +
Pi,j i3
c · (Ki (y) + Li (z) + ci ) · z j +
Pi,j 4i
c · (Ki (y) + Li (z) + ci ) · z̄ j +
Pi,j 5 i
Pi i6 · (K2i (y) + Li (z) + ci )
c +
c · (y j − y j ) +
Pj i7 2
j ci · (z j − z j )
=
Kt (y) + Lt (z) + ct
Inductively ci = ai + bi , so also:
P 1 P 1
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · y j + c · (Li (z) + bi ) · y j +
Pi,j 2i Pi,j 2i
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · ȳ j + c · (Li (z) + bi ) · ȳ j +
Pi,j 3i Pi,j 3i
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · z j + c · (Li (z) + bi ) · z j +
Pi,j 4i Pi,j 4i
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · z̄ j + c · (Li (z) + bi ) · z̄ j +
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
Pi i6 · (K2i (y) + ai )
c + i i · (Li (z) + bi )
c +
c · (y j − y j ) +
Pj 7i 2
j i · (z j − z j )
c
=
Kt (y) + Lt (z) + ct
P 1 P 3
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · y j + c · (Li (z) + bi ) · z j +
Pi,j 2i Pi,j i4
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · ȳ j + c · (Li (z) + bi ) · z̄ j +
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
Pi i6 · (K2i (y) + ai )+
c Pi i7 · (L2i (z) + bi )+
c
j ci · (y j − y j ) j ci · (z j − z j )
= =
Kt0 (y) + a0 L0t (z) + b0
P 1
c · (Li (z) + bi ) · y j +
Pi,j i2
c · (Li (z) + bi ) · ȳ j +
Pi,j i3
c · (Ki (y) + ai ) · z j +
Pi,j i4
i,j ci · (Ki (y) + ai ) · z̄ j
=
Kt00 (y) + L00t (z) + c00
P 1 P 3
Pi,j 2i Pi,j i4
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
Pi ci6 · (K2i (y) + ai )+ Pi ci7 · (L2i (z) + bi )+
j ci · (y j − y j ) j ci · (z j − z j )
= =
Kt0 (y) + a0 L0t (z) + b0
{Ki (y) + ai ≥ 0}
{Li (z) + bi ≥ 0}
|=R Kt00 (y) + L00t (z) + c00 ≥ 0
{0 ≤ y j ≤ 1}
{0 ≤ z j ≤ 1}
P 1 P 3
Pi,j 2i Pi,j i4
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
j ci · (y j − y j ) j ci · (z j − z j )
= =
Kt0 (y) + a0 L0t (z) + b0
{Ki (y) + ai ≥ 0}
{Li (z) + bi ≥ 0}
|=R Kt00 (y) + L00t (z) + c00 ≥ 0
{0 ≤ y j ≤ 1}
{0 ≤ z j ≤ 1}
Apply Farkas’ Lemma!

P 1 P 3
Pi,j 2i Pi,j i4
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
j ci · (y j − y j ) j ci · (z j − z j )
= =
Kt0 (y) + a0 L0t (z) + b0
P 8
Pi ci9 · (Ki (y) + ai )+
i ci · (Li (z) + bi )
=
Kt00 (y) + L00t (z) + c00
P 1 P 3
Pi,j 2i Pi,j i4
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
j ci · (y j − y j ) j ci · (z j − z j )
= =
Kt0 (y) + a0 L0t (z) + b0
P 8
Pi ci9 · (Ki (y) + ai )+
i ci · (Li (z) + bi )
=
Kt00 (y) + L00t (z) + c00
Split!
P 1 P 3
Pi,j 2i Pi,j i4
Pi,j 5 i Pi,j 5 i
j ci · (y j − y j ) j ci · (z j − z j )
= =
Kt0 (y) + a0 L0t (z) + b0
P 1 P 3
Pi,j 8 i Pi,j 9 i
i ci · (Ki (y) + ai ) i ci · (Li (z) + bi )
= =
Kt00 (y) + a00 L00t (z) + b00
where a00 + b00 = c00 .

Consequences: conditional l.b.’s for dag-like
Corollary:
If explicit one-way permutations exist,

then there are explicit 3-CNFs that are
hard for (size of) dag-like degree-2 LS and LS+ .
Consequences: conditional l.b.’s for dag-like
Corollary:
If explicit one-way permutations exist,

then there are explicit 3-CNFs that are
hard for (size of) dag-like degree-2 LS and LS+ .
(F (Y ) = X ∧ Yi = 0) ∧ (F (Z) = X ∧ Zi = 1)
Open problems
Open problems
1. unconditional size lower bounds for dag-like LS and LS+ ?

Open problems

2. degree-ω(1) SOS l.b. for SSE and UG problems?
Open problems

3. degree-ω(1) SOS l.b. for 1.99-approx. of vertex cover?
Open problems

4. degree-Ω(n) SA l.b. for 1.99-approx. of vertex cover?
Open problems

4. degree-Ω(n) SA l.b. for 1.99-approx. of vertex cover?
5. candidates missing! [ SOS killed them ]
References (1 of 2)
- Lovasz-Schrijver 1991: degree-2 inferences only; iterate.

- Sherali-Adams 1990: nn-juntas without twin variables; do not iterate.
- Parrilo 2000: beyond 0-1, thus sos only; do not iterate.
- Lasserre 2000: beyond 0-1 via primal-dual approach; do not iterate.
- Pudlak 1997: explicit inference rules for original LS.
- Grigoriev-Vorobyov 1999: Positivstellensatz calculus inspired by PC.
- Grigoriev-Hirsch-Pasechnik 2002: many variants, systematic,...
- Dantchev 2007: Sherali-Adams with twin variables.
References (2 of 2)
- Upper bounds for ni=1 Xi ≤ 1 and PHP in LS: Pudlak.

P
- Upper bounds for PHP in SA: Dantchev-Martin-Rhodes 2009.
- Upper bounds for ni=1 Xi ≤ 1 in SOS: Lovasz-Schrijver.
P
- Upper bounds for PHP in SOS: Grigoriev-Hirsch-Pasechnik.
- Lower bound PHP for SA: Dantchev-Martin-Rhodes 2009.
- SSE problem: Raghavendra-Steurer .
- Hypercontractivity in SOS: Barak et al. 2012, O’Donnell-Zhu 2012.
- Degree-size tradeoff for LS and LS+ : Pitassi-Segerlind 2009-2012.
- Interpolation for degree-2 LS: Pudlak 1997.
- Interpolation for degree-2 LS+ : Dash 2000.
- Lower bound Tseitin: Grigoriev 1999.
- Lower bound random 3-XOR: Schoenebeck 2008.

Atserias Oberwolfach2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atserias Oberwolfach2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELECTED TOPICS ON

Polynomial inequalities (coefficients in R):

Non-negative juntas (nn-juntas):

where K ⊆ [n] and aI,J ≥ 0 for all I, J ⊆ K with I ∩ J = ∅.

Non-negative juntas (nn-juntas):

where K ⊆ [n] and aI,J ≥ 0 for all I, J ⊆ K with I ∩ J = ∅.

Sums of such things:

sos: “sums of squares”

Q0 , Q1 , . . . , Qm that are sums of squares or nn-juntas

degree of the inference:

LS: twin variables, Boolean axioms, and sums of nn-juntas only.

LS: twin variables, Boolean axioms, and sums of nn-juntas only.

LS: twin variables, Boolean axioms, and sums of nn-juntas only.

proofs of unsatisfiability ≡ derivations of −1 ≥ 0

DAG TREE STAR

Dag-like: unrestricted shape, as long as acyclic.

Size: bit-size of all coefficients (explicit sums of monomials),

Size: bit-size of all coefficients (explicit sums of monomials),

Original Lovasz-Schrijver ≡ dag-like degree-2 LS and LS+

Original Lovasz-Schrijver ≡ dag-like degree-2 LS and LS+

Lasserre/SOS ≡ star-like LS+

Original Lovasz-Schrijver ≡ dag-like degree-2 LS and LS+

Lasserre/SOS ≡ star-like LS+

Ed (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

Ed (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS } = min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed (S) }

Ed (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS } = min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed (S) }

If Ed+ (S) 6= ∅ then S 6`1d −1 ≥ 0 in LS.

Ed+ (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

Ed+ (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS+ } ≤ min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed+ (S) }

Ed+ (S): set of linear functionals E : R[X1 , . . . , Xn ]d → R s.t.

max{ c : S `1d P ≥ c in LS+ } ≤ min{ E(P ) : E ∈ Ed+ (S) }

If Ed+ (S) 6= ∅ then S 6`1d −1 ≥ 0 in LS+ .

1. basic counting: pigeonhole principle

Xi + Xj ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j

Xi + Xi+1 + · · · + Xi+k−1 + Xi+k ≤ 1

[mimic the 2-to-3 derivation]

Xi,k + Xj,k ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j, k ∈ [n − 1]

Xi,k + Xj,k ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j, k ∈ [n − 1]

in size-O(n4 ) degree-2 height-2n LS

Xi,k + Xj,k ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j, k ∈ [n − 1]

in size-O(n4 ) degree-2 height-2n LS

Xi,k + Xj,k ≤ 1 for all i, j ∈ [n], i 6= j, k ∈ [n − 1]

in size-O(n4 ) degree-2 height-2n LS

Every height-1 LS-refutation of PHPnn−1 has degree ≥ n.

Define a degree-(n − 1) pseudoexpectation for LS:

Define a degree-(n − 1) pseudoexpectation for LS:

1. choose i∗ ∈ [n] − {i1 , . . . , id } arbitrarily (use d ≤ n − 1)

Define a degree-(n − 1) pseudoexpectation for LS:

1. choose i∗ ∈ [n] − {i1 , . . . , id } arbitrarily (use d ≤ n − 1)

Define a degree-(n − 1) pseudoexpectation for LS:

1. choose i∗ ∈ [n] − {i1 , . . . , id } arbitrarily (use d ≤ n − 1)

with α chosen u.a.r. as in 2.

There is a size-O(n2 ) degree-2 height-1 LS+ -derivation of

There is a size-O(n2 ) degree-2 height-1 LS+ -derivation of

There is a size-O(n2 ) degree-2 height-1 LS+ -derivation of

There is a size-O(n3 ) degree-2 height-1 LS+ -refutation of PHPnn−1 .

Given a weighted n-vertex regular graph G = (V, E, W ),

YES: all A ⊆ V with |A| = δn have W (A, A) ≥ (1 − )δ ,

Given a weighted n-vertex regular graph G = (V, E, W ),

YES: all A ⊆ V with |A| = δn have W (A, A) ≥ (1 − )δ ,

YES: all A ⊆ V with |A| = δn have W (A, A) ≥ (1 − )δ ,

YES: all A ⊆ V with |A| = δn have W (A, A) ≥ (1 − )δ ,

∀ > 0 ∃δ > 0 s.t. SSE(,δ ) is NP-hard.

YES: all A ⊆ V with |A| = δn have W (A, A) ≥ (1 − )δ ,

∀ > 0 ∃δ > 0 s.t. SSE(,δ ) is NP-hard.

Theorem: For every > 0,

F ` X≥ degree-(D − 1), height-1, for some > 0

F ` X≥ degree-(D − 1), height-1, for some > 0

F ` X≥ degree-(D − 1), height-1, for some > 0

F ` X≥ degree-(D − 1), height-1, for some > 0