Jump Operators, Interactive Proofs and Proof Complexity Generators
Erfan Khaniki
Abstract
A jump operatorin proof complexity is a function such that for any proof systemis a proof system thatcannot simulate. Some candidate jump operators were proposed by Krajicek and Pudlak [63] and Krajicek [57], but it is an open problem whether computable jump operators exist or not. In this regard, we introduce a new candidate jump operator based on the power of interactive proofs which given a proof system, [I P,(I P-randomized implicit proof system based onis an M A proof system. In the first step, we investigate the relationship between IP - randomized implicit proof systems and Cook-Reckhow proof systems. In particular, we show that ifEF (Krajicek's implicit Extended Frege) proves exponential hard on average circuit lower bounds efficiently, thenE F simulates [IP, EF]. Moreover, we show that IP-randomized implicit proof systems can be used to prove new connections between different well-studied concepts in complexity theory. Namely, we prove new results about the hardness magnification in proof complexity, the hardness of proving proof complexity lower bounds, the automatability and the feasible disjunction property for Extended Frege using IP - randomized implicit proof systems. One ingredient of our proofs is a formalization of the sum-check protocol [65] inwhich might be of independent interest. We also look at the general theory of jump operators and consider an old conjecture by Pudlak [78] about finite consistency sentences for first-order theories of arithmetic. In this direction, we prove that certain statements are equivalent, in particular, we prove that the widely believed assumption about the existence of computable jump operators in proof complexity is equivalent to a weaker form of Pudlak's conjecture.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext ee31064b-4c1f-4e88-b19e-6062a44829ebCited by top-tier papers3
- The Proof Analysis ProblemNoel Arteche, Albert Atserias, Susanna F. de Rezende, Erfan KhanikiFOCS 2025 · 4 citations
- Gödel in Cryptography: Effectively Zero-Knowledge Proofs for NP with No Interaction, No Setup, and Perfect SoundnessRahul IlangoFOCS 2025 · 1 citation
- A Theory for Probabilistic Polynomial-Time ReasoningLijie Chen, Jiatu Li, Igor C. Oliveira, Ryan WilliamsSTOC 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on5
- Strong co-nondeterministic lower bounds for NP cannot be proved feasiblyJán Pich, Rahul SanthanamSTOC 2021 · 10 citations
- Automating algebraic proof systems is NP-hardSusanna F. de Rezende, Mika Göös, Jakob Nordström, Toniann Pitassi et al.STOC 2021 · 6 citations
- Iterated lower bound formulas: a diagonalization-based approach to proof complexityRahul Santhanam, Iddo TzameretSTOC 2021 · 4 citations
- Fiat-Shamir in the Plain Model from Derandomization (Or: Do Efficient Algorithms Believe that NP = PSPACE?)Lijie Chen, Ron D. Rothblum, Roei TellSTOC 2025 · 2 citations
- Automating cutting planes is NP-hardMika Göös, Sajin Koroth, Ian Mertz, Toniann PitassiSTOC 2020 · 2 citations
Related papers
- Computational expressivity of (circular) proofs with fixed pointsGianluca Curzi, Anupam DasLICS 2023 · 6 citations
- Unprovability of Strong Complexity Lower Bounds in Bounded ArithmeticJiatu Li, Igor C. OliveiraSTOC 2023 · 2 citations
- LEARN-Uniform Circuit Lower Bounds and Provability in Bounded ArithmeticMarco Carmosino, Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova, Igor C. OliveiraFOCS 2021 · 6 citations
- Student-Teacher Constructive Separations and (Un)Provability in Bounded Arithmetic: Witnessing the GapStefan Grosser, Marco CarmosinoSTOC 2025 · 3 citations
- Zero-Knowledge IOPs with Linear-Time Prover and Polylogarithmic-Time VerifierJonathan Bootle, Alessandro Chiesa, Siqi LiuEUROCRYPT 2022 · 27 citations
