Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.02294

The SPARSE-Relativization Framework and Applications to Optimal Proof Systems

Fabian Egidy
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We investigate the following longstanding open questions raised by Krajíček and Pudlák (J. Symb. L. 1989), Sadowski (FCT 1997), Köbler and Messner (CCC 1998) and Messner (PhD 2000). Q1: Does TAUT have (p-)optimal proof systems? Q2: Does QBF have (p-)optimal proof systems? Q3: Are there arbitrarily complex sets with (p-)optimal proof systems? Recently, Egidy and Glaßer (STOC 2025) contributed to these questions by constructing oracles that show that there are no relativizable proofs for positive answers of these questions, even when assuming well-established conjectures about the separation of complexity classes. We continue this line of research by providing the same proof barrier for negative answers of these questions. For this, we introduce the SPARSE-relativization framework, which is an application of the notion of bounded relativization by Hirahara, Lu, and Ren (CCC 2023). This framework allows the construction of sparse oracles for statements such that additional useful properties (like an infinite polynomial-time hierarchy) hold. By applying the SPARSE-relativization framework, we show that the oracle construction of Egidy and Glaßer also yields the following new oracle. O1: No set in PSPACE\NP has optimal proof systems, $\mathrm{NP} \subsetneq \mathrm{PH} \subsetneq \mathrm{PSPACE}$, and PH collapses We use techniques of Cook and Krajíček (J. Symb. L. 2007) and Beyersdorff, Köbler, and Müller (Inf. Comp. 2011) and apply our SPARSE-relativization framework to obtain the following new oracle. O2: All sets in PSPACE have p-optimal proof systems, there are arbitrarily complex sets with p-optimal proof systems, and PH is infinite Together with previous results, our oracles show that questions Q1 and Q2 are independent of an infinite or collapsing polynomial-time hierarchy.

Explore related subjects

cs.CC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fabian Egidy. 2026-02-02. The SPARSE-Relativization Framework and Applications to Optimal Proof Systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02294

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Formalizing PARITY Circuit Lower Bounds in Lean

We formalize Hastad's PARITY lower bound in Lean using the switching lemma. For every fixed d >= 2, formulas and DAG circuits of computation depth at most d computing PARITY on n inputs require size exp(Omega_d(n^(1/(d-1)))) for all sufficiently large n. This matches the classical upper bound up to constants in the exponent and implies that PARITY is not in nonuniform AC0. We also construct a polynomial-size, logarithmic-depth bounded-fan-in formula family for PARITY, providing a witness to NC1 is not a subset of AC0 for the formalized models. The Lean source code is available at https://github.com/formalcs/circuit-complexity and is checked with Lean 4.33.1 and mathlib 4.33.1.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Constant-Coin Complete-Information Debates for $\mathsf{P}$ with Arbitrarily Small Strong Error

We study complete-information debate systems in which a probabilistic finite-state verifier reads the alternating messages of a prover and a refuter. Demirci, Say, and Yakaryılmaz showed that every language in $\mathsf{P}$ has such debates checkable with a constant number of random bits and arbitrarily small weak error. Their strong-error construction, which also counts nontermination as failure, did not permit arbitrary error reduction. We close this gap: for every $L\in\mathsf{P}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a constant-space verifier using a constant number of private coin tosses that has perfect completeness and strong error at most $\varepsilon$. The verifier simulates a polynomial-time alternating multihead finite automaton, privately spot-checking one of its input heads. The key observation is that, on a nonmember, the refuter may concede any round in which the prover first misreports a head reading. This ensures termination against every prover when the refuter follows the specified strategy, and permits strong-error reduction by repetition.

cs.CC↗