BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Stefan Dantchev appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We consider Proof Complexity in light of the unusual binary encoding of certain combinatorial principles. We contrast this Proof Complexity with the normal unary encoding in several refutation systems, based on Resolution and Integer Linear Programming. Please consult the article for the full abstract.
We propose an entropy function for simplicial complices. Its value gives the expected cost of the optimal encoding of sequences of vertices of the complex, when any two vertices belonging to the same simplex are indistinguishable. We show that the proposed entropy function can be computed efficiently. By computing the entropy of several complices consisting of hundreds of simplices, we show that the proposed entropy function can be used in the analysis of the large sequences of simplicial complices that often appear in computational topology applications.
We provide a number of simplified and improved separations between pairs of Resolution-with-bounded-conjunction refutation systems, Res(d), as well as their tree-like versions, Res*(d). The contradictions we use are natural combinatorial principles: the Least number principle, LNP_n and an ordered variant thereof, the Induction principle, IP_n. LNP_n is known to be easy for Resolution. We prove that its relativisation is hard for Resolution, and more generally, the relativisation of LNP_n iterated d times provides a separation between Res(d) and Res(d+1). We prove the same result for the iterated relativisation of IP_n, where the tree-like variant Res*(d) is considered instead of Res(d). We go on to provide separations between the parameterized versions of Res(1) and Res(2). Here we are able again to use the relativisation of the LNP_n, but the classical proof breaks down and we are forced to use an alternative. Finally, we separate the parameterized versions of Res*(1) and Res*(2). Here, the relativisation of IP_n will not work as it is, and so we make a vectorising amendment to it in order to address this shortcoming
We provide separations between the parameterized versions of Res(1) (Resolution) and Res(2). Using a different set of parameterized contradictions, we also separate the parameterized versions of Res*(1) (tree-Resolution) and Res*(2).