Circuit Complexity, Proof Complexity, and Polynomial Identity Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a new and natural algebraic proof system, whose complexity measure is essentially the algebraic circuit size of Nullstellensatz certificates. This enables us to exhibit close connections between effective Nullstellensatzë, proof complexity, and (algebraic) circuit complexity. In particular, we show that any super-polynomial lower bound on any Boolean tautology in our proof system implies that the permanent does not have polynomial-size algebraic circuits (VNP ≠ VP). We also show that super-polynomial lower bounds on the number of lines in Polynomial Calculus proofs imply the Permanent versus Determinant Conjecture. Note that there was no proof system prior to ours for which lower bounds on an arbitrary tautology implied any complexity class lower bound. Our proof system helps clarify the relationships between previous algebraic proof systems. In doing so, we highlight the importance of polynomial identity testing (PIT) in proof complexity. In particular, we use PIT to illuminate AC 0 [ p ]-Frege lower bounds, which have been open for nearly 30 years, with no satisfactory explanation as to their apparent difficulty. Finally, we explain the obstacles that must be overcome in any attempt to extend techniques from algebraic circuit complexity to prove lower bounds in proof complexity. Using the algebraic structure of our proof system, we propose a novel route to such lower bounds. Although such lower bounds remain elusive, this proposal should be contrasted with the difficulty of extending AC 0 [ p ] circuit lower bounds to AC 0 [ p ]-Frege lower bounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".