Extended Frege proofs, circuits and rewriting
Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 04:47 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Equivalence proofs of size s in Extended Frege or Circuit Frege systems yield chains of length at most s to the O(1) under a local circuit rewrite relation.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
If the equivalence C ≡ D has a size s proof in an Extended Frege or a Circuit Frege proof system then there is a chain of circuits E_i with C = E_0 ≈ … ≈ E_t = D where t ≤ s^{O(1)}, and the relation ≈ is polynomial-time and permits rewriting with at most seven added gates while preserving logical equivalence.
What carries the argument
The polynomial-time binary relation ≈ on circuits that implies logical equivalence and allows one circuit to be obtained from the other by deleting gates and adding at most seven new gates.
If this is right
- Short proofs in these systems can be converted into polynomially long sequences of local circuit modifications.
- The relation ≈ supplies a certificate for circuit equivalence that is checkable in polynomial time.
- Any upper bound on the length of ≈-chains immediately yields an upper bound on the size of proofs in the corresponding Frege systems.
- The seven-gate bound on local rewrites is preserved uniformly across the chain.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The existence of such short chains might be used to design heuristic algorithms that search for circuit equivalences by exploring bounded local changes rather than full proofs.
- If circuit equivalence testing lies outside P, the construction still separates the length of ≈-chains from the existence of short proofs only if the relation itself is hard to decide.
- The fixed seven-gate allowance could be tightened or relaxed in follow-up work to obtain sharper bounds on proof size versus rewrite length.
Load-bearing premise
The standard definitions of Extended Frege and Circuit Frege proof systems are taken to hold exactly as used in the cited background statements.
What would settle it
An explicit pair of circuits C and D whose logical equivalence has an Extended Frege proof of size s but for which every possible chain under the relation ≈ has length superpolynomial in s.
read the original abstract
Inspired by a statement about Extended Frege proof systems by Jain and Jin (FOCS 2022) we prove that: - there is a p-time binary relation $\approx$ between circuits that implies their logical equivalence, - the relation $\approx$ implies that each of the two circuits can be rewritten into the other one by possibly deleting some gates and adding at most seven new gates, - if the equivalence $C \equiv D$ has a size $s$ proof in an Extended Frege or a Circuit Frege proof system then there is a chain of circuits $E_i$ $$ C = E_0 \approx \dots \approx E_t = D $$ with $t \le s^{O(1)}$.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. Inspired by Jain and Jin (FOCS 2022), the paper proves three statements: there is a p-time binary relation ≈ between circuits that implies their logical equivalence; the relation ≈ implies that each of the two circuits can be rewritten into the other one by possibly deleting some gates and adding at most seven new gates; if the equivalence C ≡ D has a size s proof in an Extended Frege or a Circuit Frege proof system then there is a chain of circuits E_i with C = E_0 ≈ … ≈ E_t = D with t ≤ s^{O(1)}.
Significance. If these results hold, they establish a link between proof size in EF and CF systems and the length of chains under a local rewriting relation ≈, which could be significant for proof complexity theory. The p-time computability of ≈ and the constant bound of 7 on new gates are particular features that, if proved, would be noteworthy.
major comments (1)
- [Abstract] The abstract states the three theorems cleanly but supplies no derivation steps; without the full manuscript the support for the central claims cannot be checked.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their comments on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states the three theorems cleanly but supplies no derivation steps; without the full manuscript the support for the central claims cannot be checked.
Authors: Abstracts are intended to state main results concisely without full derivations; the complete proofs and supporting arguments appear in the body of the manuscript (Sections 3--5). The arXiv version supplies the full text, so the claims can be verified directly from the provided derivations. revision: no
Circularity Check
Derivation self-contained from standard definitions; no circular reductions
full rationale
The three statements are derived from the standard formal definitions of Extended Frege and Circuit Frege proof systems together with the p-time relation ≈. No equations, parameters, or self-citations reduce any claimed implication to a fit or to a prior result by the same authors that is itself unverified. The chain from proof size s to polynomial-length ≈-chain is presented as a direct translation using bounded local rewrites, without self-definitional or fitted-input constructions. The citation to Jain and Jin is used only as inspiration for the relation, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The result is therefore independent of its own outputs.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (2)
- standard math Standard definitions and properties of Extended Frege and Circuit Frege proof systems
- domain assumption The statement about Extended Frege systems from Jain and Jin (FOCS 2022)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Baader and T
F. Baader and T. Nipkow,Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press, (1998)
1998
-
[2]
Birkhoff, On the structure of abstract algebras,Proceedings Cam- bridge Phil
G. Birkhoff, On the structure of abstract algebras,Proceedings Cam- bridge Phil. Soc.,31, (1935), pp.433454
1935
-
[3]
S. A. Cook and R. A. Reckhow, The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems,J. Symbolic Logic,44(1), (1979), pp.36-50
1979
-
[4]
Jain and Z
A. Jain and Z. Jin, Indistinguishability Obfuscation via Mathematical Proofs of Equivalence, in63rd FOCS, IEEE Computer Society Press, (2022), pp.1023-1034
2022
-
[5]
Jeˇ r´ abek, Dual weak pigeonhole principle, Boolean complexity, and derandomization,Annals of Pure and Applied Logic,129, (2004), pp.1- 37
E. Jeˇ r´ abek, Dual weak pigeonhole principle, Boolean complexity, and derandomization,Annals of Pure and Applied Logic,129, (2004), pp.1- 37
2004
-
[6]
Kraj´ ıˇ cek, On Frege and Extended Frege Proof Systems
J. Kraj´ ıˇ cek, On Frege and Extended Frege Proof Systems. in:Feasi- ble Mathematics II., eds. P. Clote and J. Remmel, Birkhauser, (1995), pp.284-319
1995
-
[7]
Kraj´ ıˇ cek,Proof complexity, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol.170, Cambridge University Press, (2019)
J. Kraj´ ıˇ cek,Proof complexity, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol.170, Cambridge University Press, (2019)
2019
-
[8]
G. C. Tseitin, On the complexity of derivations in propositional cal- culus, in:Studies in mathematics and mathematical logic, Part II, ed. A.O.Slisenko, (1968), pp.115-125. 10
1968
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.