Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space
description
Transcript of Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space
![Page 1: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution:
Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space
Chris BeckPrinceton University
Joint work with Paul Beame & Russell Impagliazzo
![Page 2: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Resolution• Lines are clauses, one simple proof step
• Three basic flavors: Tree-like, Regular, and General Resolution
![Page 3: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Proof DAG
“Regular”:On every root to leaf path,no variable resolved more than once.
![Page 4: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
SAT Solvers• Well-known connection between SAT solvers
based on Backtracking and Resolution. • These algorithms are very powerful – historically
very successful in SAT competitions, sometimes can quickly handle CNF’s with millions of variables.
• On negative SAT instances, computation history yields a Resolution proof. – Tree-like Resolution DPLL– General Resolution DPLL + Clause Learning, e.g.
Chaff & descendants
![Page 5: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
SAT Solvers
• But while a useful tool, not a panacea for complexity. In many practical situations, Memory becomes the limiting factor. Frequently run into problems with Memory consumption leading to unacceptable runtimes.
• Question: Is this inherent? Or can the right heuristics avoid the memory bottleneck?
![Page 6: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Connection with Resolution
• Proof Size Time for Ideal SAT Solver• Proof Space Memory for Ideal SAT Solver• In the past, much success in finding explicit
hard examples, with exponential lower bounds for Resolution Proof Size.
• Question: Can we repeat this success for Proof Space?
![Page 7: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Connection with Resolution
• Question: Can we get strong lower bounds for Proof Space?
• Known Results: – Much success with lower bounds for space for
explicit tautologies [ET’99, ABRW’00, T’01, AD’03, N’06, NH’08, BN’08]
– Every tautology on variables has tree-like refutation of space . [Esteban, Torán ‘99] • However, these tree-like refutations are generally
impractical, because of their large size.
![Page 8: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Size-Space Tradeoffs• [Ben-Sasson, ‘01] Results for Tree-like resolution, tradeoffs essentially
aren’t possible in this model.
• [Nordström, ‘09] Formulas with min-variable space refutation exponentially large, but with O(1) more space a linear size refutation.
• [Ben-Sasson, Nordström ‘10] Formula which can be refuted in Size O(n) with Space O(n), but Space O(n/log n) Size exp(n(1)). Uses graph pebbling tautologies, and variations.
But, these are all for Space , and SAT solvers generally can afford to store the input formula in memory.
![Page 9: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Size-Space Tradeoffs
• Informal Question: Can we find formulas such that small space proofs are much larger, so that it is impractical to SAT solve with small memory?
• Formal Question (Ben-Sasson): “Does there exist a such that any CNF with a refutation of length also has a refutation of length in space O?”
• Theorem (this work): Certain Tseitin Tautologies of size n have refutations in Time and Space nlog n, but all refutations have TS > n1.16 log n, so > 1.16.
![Page 10: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Tradeoffs for Regular Resolution
• Theorem (this work): For any k, certain Tseitin Tautologies of size n such that– Have regular refutations in Time nk+1, Space nk.– But with Space only nk-, for any > 0, any regular
refutation has Time at least n log log n / log log log n.
• So, for Regular Resolution, we can give a negative answer to Ben-Sasson’s question.
![Page 11: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Space in Resolution
• Clause space . [Esteban, Torán ‘99]
• More conservative than variable space, bit space.
𝐶1
…
⊥𝐶2 x ˅𝑦 𝑥˅𝑧 𝑦˅𝑧
Time step Must be in memory
![Page 12: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Tseitin Tautologies
Given an undirected graph and , define a CSP:
Boolean variables:Parity constraints:
When has odd total parity, CSP is unsat.
![Page 13: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Tseitin Tautologies• When odd, G connected, corresponding CNF is a
Tseitin Tautology. [Tseitin ‘68]
• Only total parity of matters
• Hard when G is a constant degree expander: [Urqhart 87]: Resolution size .[Torán 99]: Resolution space
• This work: Tradeoffs on grid, , and similar graphs, using isoperimetry.
![Page 14: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Graph
• Take as our graph and form the Tseitin tautology,
• We’ll take but it’s only important that it is • Formula size .
![Page 15: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
A Refutation• Tseitin tautologies can be viewed as a system of
inconsistent -linear equations. If we add them all together, get 1=0, contradiction.
• If we order the vertices (equations) intelligently (column-wise), then we never talk about more than variables at any one time in this derivation.
• Implicational completeness means Resolution can simulate this – yields Size, Space
![Page 16: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
• Can also do a “binary search” refutation. Idea is to repeatedly bisect the graph and case out on values of edges in the cut.
• Once we split the CNF into two pieces, can discard one of them based on parity of cut.
• After queries, we’ve found a violated input clause – idea yields tree-like proof with Space , Size (Savitch-like savings)
A Different Refutation
![Page 17: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Complexity Measure
• Say an assignment to an (unsat) CNF is a critical if it violates only one constraint.
• For to Tseitin formula , “’s vertex”:
• For any Clause , define the “critical vertex set”:
vertex of that constraint
![Page 18: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Critical Set Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
function: one odd vertex in corner graph = Grid
ln
For the empty assignment, Critical set is everything.
![Page 19: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Critical Set Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
ln
For an assignment that doesn’t cut the graph, Critical set is … still everything.
![Page 20: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Critical Set Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
ln
For this assignment, several components.Assignment is all zeros, Upper left is critical.
![Page 21: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Critical Set Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
ln
![Page 22: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Complexity Measure
• Define . Then is a subadditive complexity measure: , , , when
• Very Useful: Every edge on the boundary of is assigned by . If graph has an isoperimetric inequality, then “medium complexity” clauses are wide.
![Page 23: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Complexity vs. Time
• Consider the time ordering of any proof, and plot complexity of clauses in memory vs. time
• Only constraints – start low, end high, and because of subadditivity, cannot skip over any [t, 2t] window of μ-values on the way up.
Time
μ
Input clauses
⊥
![Page 24: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Complexity vs. Time
• Consider the time ordering of any proof, and divide time into equal epochs (fix later)
Time
Hi
Med
Low
![Page 25: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Two Possibilities
• Consider the time ordering of any proof, and divide time into equal epochs (fix later)
• Either, a medium complexity clause appears in memory at at least one of the breakpoints between epochs,
Time
Hi
Med
Low
![Page 26: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Two Possibilities
• Consider the time ordering of any proof, and divide time into equal epochs (fix later)
• Or, all breakpoints only have Hi and Low. Must have an epoch which starts Low ends Hi, and therefore has clauses of every Medium level.
Time
Hi
Med
Low
![Page 27: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Medium Sets have large BoundaryClaim: For any .
Proof:If has at least partially full columns, each gives edges as desired. Without loss there is at least one full column, and at least one empty, since at most half are full, only a few are partial.
![Page 28: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Medium Sets have large BoundaryClaim: For any .
Proof:Suppose S has a full column and an empty column. For any two columns, has edge disjoint paths between them. QED.
![Page 29: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Intuition
• Bottleneck Counting intuition: Since medium clauses are wide, they don’t do much work.
• A random assignment has chance to falsify one, so if first scenario is not very significant.
Time
Hi
Med
Low
![Page 30: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Idea: Random Restrictions
• A restriction is a partial assignment of truth values to variables, simplifying formulas.
• a CNF, yields restricted formula
• a proof of , yields restricted refutation of size, space don’t increase.
• Typical to choose a restriction randomly, esp. when using bottleneck counting intuition.
![Page 31: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Intuition
• Time divided into epochs
• If we apply a random restriction, and is small, then typically first scenario will not occur in restricted proof.
Time
Hi
Med
Low
![Page 32: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Intuition
• Time divided into epochs
• But if is also small, then this scenario is also unlikely in the restricted proof. This part is one of our primary technical contributions.
Time
Hi
Med
Low
![Page 33: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Extended Isoperimetric InequalityFor both medium,
have
Two medium sets of different sizes boundary guarantee doubles.
Extends: medium sets of superincreasing sizes.
![Page 34: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
RestrictionsWe show, for a random restriction w that for any clauses ,
2nd scenario is unlikely if epochs are small
![Page 35: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Analysis
• Restricted proof, time divided into epochs
• Bound probability of first asTime
Hi
Med
Low
𝑚 ∙𝑆 ∙( 23 )(1−𝑜 (1))𝑛2
# epochs
# clauses in memory Pr for clause to become medium
![Page 36: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Analysis
• Restricted proof, time divided into epochs
• Bound second as:( # medium levels)
Time
Hi
Med
Low
𝑚 ∙( 𝑇𝑚 )𝑘∙( 23 )
𝑘(1−𝑜 (1))𝑛2
# k-tuples per epochPr for k clauses to become mediumAnd have sizes a factor of 2 different
![Page 37: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Time Space Tradeoff
• Taking
• So since ,
1≤𝑚 ( 𝑇𝑚 )𝑘
( 23 )𝑘 (1−𝑜 (1 ))𝑛2
+𝑚𝑆( 23 )(1−𝑜 (1) )𝑛2
𝑇 𝑘𝑆𝑘−1≥ 12 ( 32 )
(2𝑘−1) (1−𝑜 (1 ) )𝑛2
𝑇𝑆≥( 94 )(1−𝑜 ( 1) )𝑛2
=21.1699(1−𝑜 (1 ))𝑛2
![Page 38: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Regular Resolution • Can define partial information precisely
• Complexity is monotonic wrt proof DAG edges.
• Random Adversary selects random assignments based on proof– No random restrictions
• Precise information implies can apply division into epochs recursively
Yields superpolynomial lower bound
![Page 39: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Open Questions
• Extend subdivision technique to General Resolution? This would settle Ben-Sasson’s question.
• Better bounds on his constant? A lower bound greater than 2 for General Resolution will require significant new technical insight.
• Other proof systems?• Other cases for separating search paradigms:
“dynamic programming” vs. “binary search”?
![Page 40: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Thanks!
![Page 41: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Regular Resolution
• Equivalence between Regular Resolution refutations and Read-Once Branching Program for the Clause Search Problem. [Krajicek]
• Permits nice top-down analysis. Definition:
Common Information: For a clause in proof , := largest partial assignment consistent with every assignment reaching .
![Page 45: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Regular Resolution
• Consistency Lemma: If a partial assignment leads to , agrees with on .
• Corollary: If a partial assignment leads to , .
• Idea: Build with a probabilistic strategy, try to keep large but also make many random decisions when not affected.
• Hope: Probability to reach complex is small.
![Page 46: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Definition: Adversary Strategy
A Probabilistic Adversary, following a path from the root to the leaves of the proof.• Remembers answers already given, thought of
as a partial assignment .• If new edge is queried, (resolved on)– Doesn’t cut choose randomly– Does cut choose to maximize bad set
![Page 47: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Adversary Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
nW
Adversary flips coins for non-cut edges.
?
![Page 48: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Adversary Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
nW
For this cut edge, he chooses blue to maximizethe critical set.
![Page 49: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Adversary Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
nW
This edge cuts the critical set, he keeps bigger half.
?
![Page 50: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Adversary Examples Blue = 0Red = 1
nW
This edge cuts a “good” set. If assigned wrong,crit set becomes empty, b/c multiple odd comps.
?
Adversary therefore chooses to keep the crit set.
![Page 51: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Observations
• Adversary’s critical set: –Decreases monotonically.– Is never empty.–Never decreases by more than a factor of
two in one step.
• But since we are flipping coins for every non-cut edge, can prove a crucial lemma:
![Page 52: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Main Lemma• For each clause ,
where is the size of largest subset of variables assigned by which doesn’t cut G. (rank in the cut matroid of ).
• Further, for any path ,
(Conditional rank of corresponding edge sets).• Proof: Careful induction. Result is tight.
![Page 53: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Consequences of Main Lemma
• Most clauses do not have much information:
• Typically, we have information which is helpful towards only a few complexity levels. Suppose are from distinct medium complexity levels, and our graph is grid, .
• Previous isoperimetric arguments tell us
![Page 54: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Consequences of Main LemmaClaim: If , then , in fact as well. Proof: First for any ,These hold for any rank function.When , , the assumption implies RHS and we argued before . This bounds , but all these edges are on critical set, so also.
![Page 55: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Consequences of Main Lemma
How to use this? Suppose . Our grid will give us medium levels. But if , we conclude that for every typical clause in a proof, all but levels have conditional probability for any of their clauses to be reached from .
![Page 56: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Subdivision idea• Suppose have path to a typical clause s.t.
Conditional Probability, having followed , to– Reach an atypical clause, or to,– Fail to advance levels in the next time steps
is at most .• Because is typical, we can find a similar so
that we do not reach an atypical clause, or fail to advance levels in the next time steps, except with Pr .– (For of our choice)
![Page 57: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Main Idea for Harder Tradeoff
These guys each have small Pr to be reached. Mark them, bound to hit marked is Δ < 1.By averaging, can pick a short path s.t. conditionally, bound is still < Δ.
![Page 58: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Main Idea for Harder Tradeoff
Would like to repeat and divide again, however…
![Page 59: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Main Idea for Harder Tradeoff
Select largest consecutive stretch of bounded levels, throw away breakpoint clauses in those.
These nodes each have .At most “breaks” in the walls, because we are at a typical location.
New∆ ≤Old ∆+𝑚𝑆𝑛− (1−𝜀 )𝑐
![Page 60: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Main Idea for Harder Tradeoff
• Again select a path in between walls, by avg.
By the end of that epoch, adv must have come out below the wall , Pr at least ∆
?
?
![Page 61: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Main Idea for Harder Tradeoff
![Page 62: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Main Idea for Harder Tradeoff• Height of walls is
Rinse and repeat! times
?
𝑇 ≥ (𝑛(1−𝑜 (1) )𝑐
𝑆 )Ω ( log log𝑛log log log𝑛)
![Page 63: Time-Space Tradeoffs in Resolution: Lower Bounds for Superlinear Space](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062310/56815efd550346895dcdba5c/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)