Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
134 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
10 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Proof Complexity Generators

Updated 1 July 2025
  • Proof Complexity Generators are polynomial-time functions designed to produce propositional tautologies that are hard to prove in strong proof systems.
  • They leverage cryptographic assumptions and bounded arithmetic to construct formulas whose proof complexity elucidates fundamental separations like NP versus coNP.
  • The associated Disjoint Disjunction search problem illustrates the breakdown of efficient proof decomposition, offering a pathway to demonstrate proof lower bounds.

A proof complexity generator is a polynomial-time computable function whose structure is specifically designed to create hard propositional tautologies for propositional proof systems, with the ultimate goal of establishing lower bounds on proof size and clarifying separations between NP and coNP. Recent research has connected the construction and analysis of such generators to cryptographic primitives (e.g., one-way permutations), bounded arithmetic model theory, and the complexity of related search problems, especially those lying in NP ∩ coNP.

1. Formal Definition and Motivation

A proof complexity generator (PCG) is formally a (possibly non-uniform p/poly) function

g:{0,1}n{0,1}mg : \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^m

with m>nm > n, where gg is efficiently computable. The key property is that, for inputs bRng(g)b \notin \operatorname{Rng}(g), the statement “bb is not in the range of gg” can be encoded as a propositional tautology, denoted τ(g)b\tau(g)_b. The interest is in the complexity of proofs for these tautologies in a given proof system PP.

The philosophical and technical goal is to generate “hard” tautologies: formulas that require large proofs in strong proof systems. PCGs often arise from the hardness of inverting certain NP ∩ coNP functions, especially when based on cryptographic assumptions such as one-way permutations.

2. The Disjoint Disjunction Search Problem (DD_P)

A central concept is the “Disjoint Disjunction” search problem DDP\mathrm{DD}_P, defined for a proof system PP:

  • Instance: a triple (π,m,{αi}i<m)(\pi, m, \{\alpha_i\}_{i < m}), where π\pi is a PP-proof of the disjunction i<mαi\bigvee_{i < m} \alpha_i, and the formulas αi\alpha_i are pairwise disjoint (no shared atomic variables).
  • Task: Find i<mi < m such that αi\alpha_i is a tautology (i.e., αiTAUT\alpha_i \in \mathrm{TAUT}).

The problem DDP\mathrm{DD}_P is a total Σ2p\Sigma^p_2 search problem: for each valid instance, such a witness exists by virtue of a complete (sound) proof system.

This search problem highlights whether, given a proof of a disjoint disjunction, one can efficiently extract a proof (or simply identify) a specific true disjunct. This property is related to the so-called “feasible disjunction property” of a proof system: the ability to decompose a proof of a disjunction into proofs of individual disjuncts in polynomial time.

3. Hypothesis (ST) and Its Consequences for NP vs coNP

The hypothesis (labelled (ST) for “Student-Teacher”) is formulated as follows:

There exists a strong proof system PP for which the problem DDP\mathrm{DD}_P cannot be solved by a student (an algorithm in P/poly\mathsf{P}/\mathsf{poly}) in a constant number of rounds in the “student-teacher” model.

Explicitly, DDPST[P/poly,O(1)]\mathrm{DD}_P \notin \mathrm{ST}[\mathsf{P}/\mathsf{poly}, O(1)], where the S-T model considers interaction between a computationally bounded “student” and an all-powerful “teacher.”

A crucial result is that if Hypothesis (ST) holds—together with a certain model-theoretic assumption about extensions of models in bounded arithmetic—then it follows that NPcoNPNP \neq coNP. The underlying intuition is that, if extracting tautological disjuncts from disjoint disjunctions is computationally intractable, then not all tautologies can have short proofs in the underlying proof system; this precludes NP=coNPNP=coNP.

Additionally, the hypothesis (ST) is shown to follow from the cryptographic assumption that strong one-way permutations exist, as established via the Nisan-Wigderson generator analysis.

4. Model-Theoretic Framework and Its Role

A significant part of the theoretical underpinnings comes from model theory of bounded arithmetic. The relevant model-theoretic assumption concerns the existence of extensions of nonstandard models of TPVT_{PV} (the universal theory of polynomial-time computations) with the property that certain computational “lengths” or domains are preserved, and a given propositional formula φ\varphi becomes (un)satisfiable in the extension.

This technical assumption, if true, enables the transfer of independence results—in particular, the inability to resolve certain search problems or proof lower bounds in propositional proof systems—from arithmetic to propositional frameworks. In the context of proof complexity generators, this helps bridge the gap between arithmetically established limitations and proof-theoretic hardness, and is pivotal in showing that (ST) implies NPcoNPNP\neq coNP.

5. Cryptographic and Structural Connections: NP ∩ coNP Hardness

Proof complexity generators, especially those constructed in the Nisan-Wigderson style, derive their hardness from functions fNPcoNPf \in NP \cap coNP that are “one-way” or hard to invert (i.e., not computable by small circuits or algorithms). Assuming strong one-way permutations, it can be shown that for some explicit generator gg, the associated tautologies τ(g)b\tau(g)_b are not efficiently provable in strong proof systems.

This establishes a deep link between proof complexity and foundational cryptography: cryptographic hardness assumptions underwrite the difficulty of generating short tautological proofs, and thus, the separation between NP and coNP may in part hinge on the intractability of witness search for Σ2p\Sigma^p_2 problems built from such generators.

6. Open Questions and Future Directions

The paper identifies several notable open questions and directions for further work:

  • Model-theoretic extension property: Whether the required extension property for bounded arithmetic models holds in full generality remains open. A negative answer would itself separate NPNP from coNPcoNP unconditionally.
  • Universality of (ST): Does the non-solvability of DDP\mathrm{DD}_P in the S-T model hold for all strong proof systems, or only some? This impacts the generality of the feasible disjunction limitation.
  • Further development of PCGs: Refinements in the construction of proof complexity generators may inform better methods for proving proof lower bounds, and help realize explicit hard tautology families.
  • Interplay with disjunction property: Understanding failure modes of the feasible disjunction property and its implications for proof size, proof search, and the architecture of proof systems is a central problem for future paper.
  • Use of advanced model-theoretic tools: Expanding the interaction between Boolean-valued models, finite model theory, and bounded arithmetic models could yield further breakthroughs.

Summary Table of Key Concepts

Concept Definition / Statement Consequence / Usage
Proof Complexity Generator gg g:{0,1}n{0,1}mg: \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^m, p-time computable Generates tautologies τ(g)b\tau(g)_b likely hard to prove
τ(g)b\tau(g)_b (Tau-Tautology) Propositional statement that bRng(g)b \notin \operatorname{Rng}(g) Candidate for large proof size in proof systems
DDP\mathrm{DD}_P Search Problem Given PP-proof π\pi of disjoint iαi\bigvee_{i} \alpha_i, find ii with αiTAUT\alpha_i \in \mathrm{TAUT} Probes feasible disjunction property
Hypothesis (ST) \exists strong PP: DDPST[P/poly,O(1)]\mathrm{DD}_P \notin \mathrm{ST}[\mathsf{P/poly}, O(1)] If true, implies NPcoNPNP \neq coNP (model-theoretic support)
Model-Theoretic Assumption Extensions of models MMM\mathbf{M} \subseteq \mathbf{M}^* \subseteq \mathbf{M}' with preserved sizes Enables transfer of S-T intractability to proof lower bounds
Strong Feasible Disjunction Property Ability to decompose disjunction proofs into proofs of disjuncts efficiently Shown to fail for strong systems via above frameworks

Technical Formulations

  • Tau-Tautology:

x(x=n)i<myiAb(x,i,yi)\forall x\, (|x| = n)\, \exists i < m\, \forall y_i\, A_b(x, i, y_i)

  • Disjoint Disjunction:

i<mαiwith disjoint atom sets\bigvee_{i < m} \alpha_i \qquad \text{with disjoint atom sets}

  • Student-Teacher Model: Total Σ2p\Sigma^p_2 search solvable in t(n)t(n) rounds with a P/poly\mathsf{P/poly} “student.”

Conclusion

The theory of proof complexity generators provides a bridge from cryptographic assumptions and model-theoretic techniques in bounded arithmetic to concrete lower bounds in propositional proof complexity. Central search problems such as DDP\mathrm{DD}_P, grounded in the structural properties of PCGs, offer a pathway to separating NP from coNP by exposing fundamental limitations in the decomposability and tractability of proofs in strong propositional systems. The open technical and conceptual challenges, particularly those involving model-theoretic extension properties and the universality of feasible disjunction failure, represent key strategic frontiers for continued research in the field.