there has arisen considerable interest in the use of  weak value " techniques to improve the accuracy of precision measurement . while it has been recognized for some time that these techniques , in and of themselves , do not overcome fundamental limits for coherent light sources (  standard quantum limit " ) ( see _ e.g. _ @xcite ) ,
there are technical advantages in that these methods make the experimental approach to these limits relatively easy with common experimental equipment .
indeed , these techniques have already been successfully applied in the lab to measure with high precision the optical spin hall effect and other polarization dependent beam deflections @xcite , interferometric deflections of optical beams @xcite , phase shifts @xcite , frequency shifts @xcite , temperature shifts @xcite , and velocity measurements @xcite . in most of these experiments , the weak value amplification ( wva )
technique met and even surpassed the sensitivity of standard techniques in the field .
for a recent review of this and related weak value research , see ref .
@xcite .
although these experimental findings have been employed in a number of different research groups and applied to metrological questions of a number of different physical parameters , there are still some open questions and even controversy @xcite about this technique : precisely how and to what extent can wva techniques help against technical noise , or give some kind of technical advantage in comparison to the standard measurement techniques ? starling _
considered a particular parameter estimator , showing that wva could give an advantage @xcite .
an important step was made in this question when feizpour , xingxing , and steinberg @xcite were able to consider a more general kind of technical noise , and showed that so long as it had a long correlation time , wva also help suppress it in the signal to noise ratio ( snr ) .
in other closely related work , kedem @xcite , brunner and simon @xcite and nishizawa @xcite also showed an increased performance of the snr in the presence of technical noise .
in contrast to these results , recent papers have claimed that wva gives no technical advantage @xcite .
the argument is justified by using a fisher information analysis of technical noise applied to the signal carrier ( e.g. , such as beam displacement jitter ) .
( we note the fisher information analysis has been recently applied to wva by other authors as well @xcite . )
however , this particular form of technical noise does not represent the complete picture .
there are many forms of technical noise that are not incorporated in this model .
for example , in optical beam deflection , noise sources include : electronics noise , transverse displacement and angular jitter , analog - to - digital discretization noise , turbulence , vibration noise of the other optical elements , spectral jitter , etc . in light of this criticism
, it is our aim in this work to analyze some of these models and examples using fisher information and maximum likelihood methods in order to understand in precisely what sense they give or fail to give a technical advantage , as well as describe other technical advantages in beam deflection ( and derivative ) experiments where the imaginary wva technique does lead to the optimal fisher information even in the presence of some types of noise sources mentioned above .
the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ fisher ] , we introduce the concepts of fisher information and maximum likelihood techniques , and illustrate how to apply them to gaussian random measurements .
we introduce weak value amplification and postselection in sec .
uncorrelated , displacement technical noise is discussed in sec .  [ kg - sec ] .
time correlated technical noise is analyzed in sec .
air turbulence is discussed briefly in sec .
the combination of displacement jitter and turbulence is discussed in sec .
[ imwv ] , showing the weak value technique can suppress both . the weak value technique is shown to better suppress angular jitter in deflection measurements in sec .
[ angular ] .
we examine a recent photon recycling proposal in sec .
[ recycle ] and show the fisher information is boosted by the inverse postselection probability .
our conclusions are summarized in sec .
fisher information describes the available information about an unknown parameter in a given probability distribution .
consider an unknown parameter @xmath0 , upon which some random variable @xmath1 depends .
let the probability distribution of @xmath1 , given @xmath0 be @xmath2 .
the score of the distribution is defined as @xmath3 .
assuming @xmath4 is a smooth function , the average of @xmath5 over @xmath4 is 0 , and its variance ( second moment ) is defined as the fisher information , @xmath6 fisher information is additive over independent trials , so for @xmath7 statistically independent measurements ( such as the collection of @xmath7 photons from a coherent source ) , @xmath8 .
consider an unbiased estimator of @xmath0 , called @xmath9 .
this is any statistical estimator whose expectation value is @xmath0 .
the variance of @xmath9 is bounded from below by the cramr - rao bound ( crb ) , or @xmath10 \ge { \cal i}(d)^{-1}$ ] .
thus , the fisher information sets the minimal possible estimate on the uncertainty of @xmath0 , for any unbiased estimator .    to illustrate how this works ,
let us consider a gaussian distribution for @xmath11 , which will describe @xmath7 independent measurements @xmath12 of an unknown mean with known variance @xmath13 for each measurement , p_g(\ { x_i } |d ) = _ i=1^n ( - ) . in this example , the score is given by @xmath14 , so indeed @xmath15 , and the fisher information is given by _
g(d ) = n ^-2 .
thus , the crb on the variance is simply @xmath16 .
consequently , the minimum resolvable signal @xmath17 will be of order of @xmath18 . in order to achieve this
minimum bound on the variance , the optimal unbiased estimator @xmath19 ( often called the efficient estimator ) must be used .
we can find it with maximum likelihood methods , by setting the score to zero , and replacing @xmath0 by @xmath19 . in the case of @xmath20 , we have s(d _ opt ) = _ j=1^n ( x_j - d_opt)/^2 = 0 , [ max0 ] so we find the efficient estimator , _ opt = ( 1/n ) _
j=1^n x_j , [ maxl ] which is simply the average of the data in this case .
we can check that the variance gives the inverse crb : @xmath21 . in an optical context , this is the `` standard quantum limit '' scaling with @xmath7 , which we can interpret as the photon number . here
the parameter @xmath0 can be interpreted as the displacement of a beam with transverse width @xmath22 .
one can immediately see that the maximum fisher information occurs for the smallest allowable beam waist .
this is intuitively obvious .
if a beam of very small waist experiences a small shift in its mean value , a position sensitive detector ( e.g. , a split detector ) would see a large change in intensity as a function of its position compared to a beam with a large waist .    in the rest of this paper , we will consider coherent gaussian distributions for simplicity .
while this is somewhat restrictive , it is also quite reasonable since most of the experiments have been performed using coherent gaussian probability densities .
this is also quite nice theoretically , owing to the fact that the log likelihood function is twice differentiable and we can use variations of the simple form of the fisher information derived above .
to apply the above results to recent optical experiments , we briefly recall a few facts about weak values @xcite .
if a quantum system is prepared in an initial state @xmath23 , has a system operator @xmath24 that is measured by weakly interacting with a meter prepared in a state of spatial variance @xmath13 , and then postselected in a final state @xmath25 with probability @xmath26 , the meter degree of freedom will be shifted by a multiplicative factor a_w = f | a|i / f |i , [ wv ] where @xmath27 is the `` weak value '' of the operator @xmath28 , while leaving the width @xmath22 unchanged ( for the moment we consider the real weak value case for simplicity ) .
such behavior is in contrast to the non - postselected case , where if the initial state is an eigenstate of @xmath24 , so that @xmath29 , the average meter shift is @xmath30 , which can be much smaller in size than the weak value shift , @xmath31 .
this process gives rise to a ( normalized ) gaussian meter probability distribution consisting of @xmath32 measurement events @xmath33 , p_g(\ { x_i } |d ) = _ i=1^n ( - ) . computing the crb on the variance as before gives the score to be @xmath34 , so the fisher information is _
g(d ) = ( a_w)^2 n ^-2 = f | a|i^2 n ^-2 .
note that the post - selection probability @xmath35 canceled out .
therefore , the fisher information is the same as before , except for a factor @xmath36 , a number that can be arranged to approach 1 for a two - level system with a judicious choice of operator , pre- and post - selection ( see appendix ) .
this is consistent with the snr analysis of ref .
similar points were made by hofmann _
we can then extract all the fisher information from the weak value , showing that ideally , the wv technique can put all of the fisher information into the post - selected events , which matches the fisher information in the standard methods using all of the events .
we note that it is not surprising that considering any sub - ensemble gives less information than the whole ensemble .
what _ is surprising _ is that by using this particular small sub - ensemble gives you all the fisher information .
this fact alone gives us technical advantages , as we shall see .
following the maximum likelihood method presented in eqs .
( [ max0],[maxl ] ) , the weak value efficient estimator is given by @xmath37 .
as a next step , we include the effect of one kind of technical noise .
we first consider the technical noise model of knee and gauger , where the @xmath7 random variables @xmath38 are independently distributed with mean @xmath0 and known variance @xmath13 @xcite .
gaussian white technical noise @xmath39 is added to @xmath38 with mean 0 and covariance @xmath40 .
we note that similar models have also been previously discussed in refs .
@xcite . knee and gauger comment
that this kind of noise might represent transverse beam displacement jitter ( in a collimated beam ) , for example .
we call this _ type 1 _ technical noise . the measured signal will be the sum of @xmath41 , so the distribution function for @xmath42 is @xmath43 , where @xmath44 integrates over all variables .
integrating over @xmath45 gives the distribution of the measured results as a convolution of the two distributions , @xmath46 where @xmath47 is a normalization constant .
calculating the fisher information as before , for @xmath7 independent measurements ( photons ) gives = .
[ ikg ] the technical noise simply broadens the width , decreasing the fisher information . in the weak value case ,
we follow the same procedure , except that @xmath48 , and @xmath49 , where @xmath35 is the post - selection probability .
we add the same technical noise to the resulting distribution of post - selected events @xmath50 , and get @xmath51 calculating the fisher information for the postselected case ( which must be reduced by @xmath35 , the post - selection probability ) gives _
kg = = , [ ikg ] where we used the weak value formula ( [ wv ] ) . consequently , as before we find the fisher information is modified by a factor of order 1 ( which will decrease or keep the fisher information the same , as discussed before ) .
this is the same conclusion reached by knee and gauger @xcite and ferrie and combes @xcite , that the weak value amplification offers no increase of fisher information for technical noise .
this result was previously found by feizpour , xingxing , and steinberg @xcite , who noted that this type 1 technical noise could not be suppressed by the real weak values technique .
however , as we will show in sec .
[ imwv ] , this is not the case for techniques implementing an imaginary weak value .
we go on to find the efficient estimator in the post - selected case , following the maximum likelihood method presented in eq .
( [ max0],[maxl ] ) .
the efficient estimator is given by @xmath52 .
in other words , one can efficiently estimate the parameter from the snr .
we note that in either the standard or wva scheme , the fisher information can be further improved by reducing the width of the meter state , but only until @xmath53 , after which the technical noise dominates the variance .
we will return to this point in sec .
in order to achieve the crb , the fisher information must not only be calculated , but the associated estimator must also be practical to implement .
the point of practicality of the efficient estimator can be strongly made by considering the analysis of feizpour , xingxing , and steinberg @xcite .
consider an experiment with single photons , such that the measurement is only triggered by the photon detection at the detector , and consists of @xmath7 measured variables @xmath54 described by an average @xmath55 plus a noise term @xmath56 that is correlated in general , @xmath57 ( we define this as _ type 2 _ technical noise ) . the noise term contains both quantum and technical noise .
it is then straightforward to check that the average is given by @xmath58 , and the variance is given by @xmath59 .
the two limits considered in ref .
@xcite are ( i ) the white noise limit , @xmath60 , and ( ii ) the fully correlated limit @xmath61 . in case ( i ) we have @xmath62 , while in case ( ii ) , we have @xmath63 . the snr is given by @xmath64 , thus averaging helps the snr for white noise , but not for fully correlated noise
.    now consider the postselected case , where @xmath65 , and @xmath66 . in case ( i ) , the variance is now @xmath67 , while the signal is @xmath68 , so the snr scales like @xmath69 , so the small post - selection probability drops out , indicating there is no advantage to using post - selection in this case ( exactly as we calculated in the previous sections for type 1 technical noise ) .
however , in case ( ii ) , the signal is boosted the same amount , while the variance remains @xmath70 in the fully correlated case .
consequently , the snr shows an advantage over the non - postselected case .
feizpour , xingxing , and steinberg go on to consider a particular noise model consisting of a combination of white and time - correlated noise , showing this advantage remains so long as the correlation time remains long compared to the photon production rate ( as it is in many optical implementations ) .
we can now revisit this model in the context of the fisher information metric to see how it compares to the snr metric .
the joint probability distribution of all of the variables @xmath71 can be written , assuming gaussian statistics , as p_s(*x * ) = .
[ multivariable ] here , @xmath72 is a vector of elements @xmath71 , and @xmath73 is a vector of the means ( in this case , @xmath74 is a vector with the same mean in every element ) .
the matrix @xmath75 is the covariance matrix and has elements @xmath76 .
@xmath77 is the inverse of the covariance matrix , and @xmath78 is its determinant .    in this case
, we may calculate the fisher information ( [ fi ] ) about @xmath55 contained in this distribution , and obtain , _
s = _ | * * ^t^-1 _ | * * = _ i , j=1^n c^-1_ij
. [ fi ] notice this fisher information contains a double sum of the elements of the inverse covariance matrix .
the `` diagonal '' terms describe the self - correlation terms , and scale proportionally to @xmath7 , recovering the independent trials for the case when the covariance matrix is diagonal . however , for strong correlations , such as the type feizpour , xingxing , and steinberg consider , each element of the inverse covariance matrix can be of comparable value , so the fisher information can scale at most like @xmath79 , giving a much larger fisher information than for uncorrelated noise .
the reason is because of the correlations between the different measurements that the snr metric misses .
when we go to the postselected case , the dimension of the matrix shrinks from @xmath7 to @xmath80 , while the mean is boosted by @xmath81 .
the fisher information is boosted by @xmath82 as before , but the double sum in ( [ fi ] ) now only goes to @xmath80 in the upper limit , @xmath83 .
the covariance matrix is different in general , since it now describes the correlations between the postselected photons only .
consequently , for white noise the fisher information is the same , up to a factor of order 1 , while for highly correlated noise , the fisher information scales at most as @xmath84 , so it is actually decreased by a factor of @xmath35 by the weak value technique , compared to the non - postselected case .
it is easy to see why : the correlations of any single postselected photon with any rejected photon are lost in the detection scheme ( unless further processing of the correlated missing photons is done ) , and consequently can not be harnessed to further suppress the noise .
in contrast to this , if the photon is correlated only with itself , then taking a random postselection will not hurt , and the fisher information can stay the same .    however , this is not the whole story .
we must ask what estimator should be used that saturates the crb , and whether it is practical to implement it . we can find this estimator using maximum likelihood methods described earlier ( [ max0],[maxl ] ) to find the estimator @xmath85 .
we assume that the covariance matrix is positive definite , symmetric , and invertible .
it then follows that its inverse is also symmetric .
we find the estimator in the non post - selected case to be _ s= .
[ estimator ] we can check the variance of this estimator matches the crb , ( _ s - |)^2 = , because the correlation of the two random variables gives the elements of the covariance matrix , @xmath86 , which cancels one of the inverse matrices in the sums , giving one factor of the denominator , resulting in the crb we found above , the inverse of ( [ fi ] ) .
however there is a difficulty in this result : the experiment implementing the estimator ( [ estimator ] ) must multiply every data point @xmath54 by a different weighting factor , @xmath87 , which knows about the rest of the data points .
the experimenter must know exactly what the correlations are , how many data points are being collected , and must be able to weight each data point by a different factor in order to extract the maximal information in the data average .
this is generally a very challenging experimental task .
therefore , the snr , which treats every type of noise on equal footing ( so the weighting assignment is @xmath88 for all @xmath89 ) is usually the most practical option .
consequently , the snr , although suboptimal as a means for estimating in this case , is still superior since the optimal estimator is impractical to implement for typical experiments .
this is why the snr is used by experimentalists : because a complete categorization of the noise correlations is a formidable task requiring detailed knowledge of noise correlations and extensive post - processing .
if we go on to consider non - gaussian correlated noise , such as @xmath90 noise , the problem of implementing the estimator becomes even worse .
another type of technical noise that is very important in open air experiments is turbulence , which we refer to here as type 3 technical noise .
while we will not give a quantitative analysis of this effect here , it gives additional beam width broadening beyond the diffraction limit because of beam breathing ( on a short time scale ) , and beam wander ( on a longer time scale ) because of the propagation through the random medium @xcite .
this becomes an important problem when there is a large optical path length from the position where the deflection occurs to the detector where it is measured .
beam jitter from turbulence can not be underestimated when dealing with extremely small deflections .
the beam wander effects become important on time scales longer than the ratio of the beam width to the typical air velocity .
typical experiments can run between seconds and hours , so this effect must be accounted for .
the weak values schemes have a distinct advantage over the standard beam deflection measurement in having short optical path lengths .
we will see this in detail in the next section .
we proceed to consider situations where imaginary wva has technical advantages for combined technical noise types .
kedem points out that in the case of imaginary weak values , noise in the average position does not appear in making measurements in the momentum basis , and that noise on the average momentum helps the snr @xcite .
we focus on a different effect unique to imaginary weak values . for definiteness ,
consider beam deflection measurements for a coherent gaussian beam using standard deflection techniques versus a sagnac interferometer weak value experiment .
most experiments used to date that show technical advantages use imaginary weak values .    to start ,
assume that the system has no technical noise .
the unknown parameter of interest is the deflection @xmath91 of the beam , which can be interpreted as the transverse momentum kick given by a mirror .
_ showed that one can interfere a local oscillator of a first order tem mode to achieve the optimal fisher information @xcite .
however , for simplicity and to understand the role of beam diameters we consider a more standard approach .
a tilt or deflection on a beam requires propagation to observe a displacement .
the standard method of measuring an unknown mirror tilt @xmath91 with a beam of width @xmath22 is to propagate the light and focus it with a lens , thereby taking the fourier transform of the beam by measuring the beam with a split detector in the back focal plane of the lens ( see fig .
1(a ) assuming @xmath92 ) .
the lens transforms the tilt @xmath91 into a displacement @xmath93 on the detector , where @xmath94 is the focal length and @xmath95 is the wavenumber .
the lens takes the beam width @xmath22 at the mirror to a beam width at the focus given by @xmath96 .
given angular jitter of momentum @xmath97 .
( a ) standard method : after the momentum kick , the beam propagates a distance @xmath98 before getting a momentum kick @xmath91 from the mirror , that is the parameter we wish to estimate .
the beam then passes through a lens with a focus @xmath99 , chosen to equal the distance traveled until it comes to the split detector , where the beam reaches its focus at a position sensitive detector ( psd ) .
( b ) weak value type method : after the momentum jitter kick @xmath97 , the light enters a sagnac interferometer , comprised of a 50/50 beam splitter ( bs ) , soleil - babinet compensator ( sbc ) , which introduce a relative phase shift @xmath100 between the paths , other mirrors , including the one that has the momentum kick @xmath91 we wish to measure .
the beam ends at a position sensitive detector ( psd).,width=321 ]    the single photon probability distribution function is then p_h(x| k ) = n , where @xmath47 is a normalization .
if we send @xmath7 independent photons to measure @xmath91 , this yields a fisher information of _ h = = 4 n ^2 , which is an intuitive result .
this means that in order to get the smallest beam waist in the back focal plane , one wants the largest beam waist possible before the lens .
we now compare this with the sagnac interferometer weak values result .    the weak value technique for measuring the beam deflection ( fig .
1(b ) with @xmath92 ) gives the post - selected distribution , that when properly normalized , is a gaussian distribution with mean @xmath101 and width @xmath13 .
here , @xmath100 is the phase difference of clockwise and counter - clockwise photons in the interferometer applied by the soleil - babinet compensator ( sbc ) .
this applies only to the post - selected fraction @xmath32 of the photons that satisfy the postselection criterion , where @xmath102 .
the postselected single photon probability distribution function is then p_h(x| k ) = n . the fisher information for the postselected measurements , reduced by the postselection probability @xmath35 ( @xmath103 ) is then found to be _
4 ^4/(^2)= 4 ^2 n. [ fisherimaginary ] thus , the weak values and standard method result in _ the same _ amount of classical fisher information , as also discussed in the appendix @xcite .
it is important to realize that this calculation is only valid in the regime of small angles @xmath104 . in other words , in the small angle or weak value regime ,
all of the fisher information is in the photons leaving the dark port of the interferometer .
so how does noise affect the fisher information for the two methods ? as a first step
, we will assume that there is no transverse beam deflection jitter , but only transverse detector jitter .
in other words , there is a small transverse deflection @xmath91 with no technical noise on the beam , but the detector used to measure the beam has a transverse jitter @xmath105 that we only sample at the photon arrival times , giving type 1 technical noise .
we first consider the standard method .
as before , the new likelihood function is the convolution of the technical noise - free likelihood function with a gaussian of width @xmath106 .
this simply increases the average beam waist at the detector by @xmath107 , resulting in a fisher information _
this is a rather interesting result .
it means that this approach can achieve the maximum fisher information ( as if there were no noise at all ) , but only in the limit of large focal length ( @xmath108 ) .
a large focal length is equivalent to opting for a larger displacement ( @xmath109 ) while allowing for a large focal spot ( @xmath110 ) .
this is once again an intuitive result : if a very small focal spot lands on a detector that has gaussian random shifts , large differential intensity fluctuations will occur , due to detector jitter , compared with a large focal spot .    for the imaginary weak value approach ,
the results are quite different .
the beam waist for this case is given by @xmath22 , not the focused beam waist @xmath111 .
this gives a fisher information of _
therefore , since @xmath112 and there is freedom to choose @xmath22 as large as one wishes , we can make the beam waist much larger than @xmath106 , which both suppresses @xmath106 and increases the fisher information ( [ fisherimaginary ] ) .
this shows that fisher information for the imaginary weak values approach remains unchanged in the presence of transverse detector jitter , while the focused beam approach requires long focal lengths .
hence , the measurement geometry plays a very important role in several ways .
ideally one would like a detector with a continuous detection distribution , but practical considerations mean there will always be dead space between finite width detectors . a simple method for obtaining nearly optimal beam detection is split detection .
however , even in this case there is always a gap between the detectors , which sets a minimum beam diameter and thus a finite propagation through horizontal turbulence .
this is not a problem for weak values since the detector can be placed immediately after the last beam splitter which mitigates the type 3 technical noise while also suppressing type 1 technical noise .
the standard method operating in the regime where type 1 noise is completely ameliorated will suffer from the type 3 technical noise .
we now consider angular beam jitter by modeling it as a random momentum kick @xmath97 given to the beam before it enters the interferometer , or before it approaches the signal mirror in the standard method .
this kick could be from air turbulence or mirror jitter .
we first consider the standard method of measuring the beam displacement illustrated in fig .
the fourier optics of this geometry is described by a series of unitary operators that act on the transverse degree of freedom in the paraxial approximation .
starting from an initial transverse state @xmath113 , that we take to be a gaussian in transverse position with zero mean , and variance @xmath13 , the unitary @xmath114 gives the first random momentum kick @xmath97 to the beam .
this is followed by a propagation of distance @xmath98 , given by the unitary @xmath115 , where @xmath95 is the wavenumber of the light .
this is followed by a momentum kick @xmath91 described by @xmath116 , and then the lens which gives a quadratic phase front , @xmath117 .
the final propagation @xmath118 puts the beam at the measurement device , which is a position - sensitive detector ( psd ) .
taken together , we can describe the final state as _
d(x ) = x | u_l_2 u_f u_k u_l_1 u_q | . to obtain an explicit form for the state , and the expectation of the position and its variance in this state
, a series of complete sets of states are inserted between the unitaries . as an intermediate step ,
let us define state @xmath119 as the state after the @xmath91 momentum kick , but before the lens .
the action of the lens is diagonal in the position basis , but the subsequent propagation is diagonal in the momentum basis . defining the coordinate at the detector as @xmath1 , the state at the detector @xmath120 is given by _
d(x ) = dy _
i(y ) e^-i k_0 y^2/2f - i py e^-i p^2 l_2/2k_0 + i px . we can reverse the order of integration and perform the @xmath4 integration first .
this gives _
d(x ) = dy _
i(y ) e^-i k_0 y^2/2f + i ( y - x)^2k_0/2l_2 . let us choose @xmath121 , so the quadratic terms in the exponential cancel out , which will lead to focusing the beam .
this leaves the state as _
d(x ) = e^ i k_0 x^2/2f dy _
i(y ) e^-i y k_0 x / f , which simply gives the scaled fourier transform of @xmath119 , but with a particular value of the momentum , @xmath122 .
the remainder of the solution involves finding the intermediate state .
this is straightforward in the momentum basis , because the first three operators are diagonal in this basis .
therefore , the momentum - space expression for @xmath123 is given by _
i(p ) = ( 8 ^2)^1/4 ( - ^2 ( p + q + k)^2 - i l_1 ( p+k)^2/2k_0 ) . putting these results together , we find that the final state at the detector gives a gaussian distribution in position @xmath1 with average and variance of x = - ( k+q ) f / k_0 , ( x - x)^2= f^2/(2 k_0)^2 .
[ y ] the net result is that the random momentum kick @xmath97 simply adds to the signal @xmath91 .
averaging this distribution of gaussian random jitter of momentum @xmath97 with zero mean and variance @xmath124 gives another gaussian distribution for @xmath1 , of mean @xmath125 and wider variance @xmath126 $ ] .
thus , the fisher information , for @xmath7 independent measurements , about @xmath91 in this distribution is given by _
[ idirect ]      a similar analysis can be carried out for the weak value interferometer case .
in addition to the momentum kick and the propagation steps , there are two unitaries that depend on the which - way operator @xmath127 , where the states @xmath128 are clockwise and counterclockwise moving photon states inside the sagnac interferometer .
superpositions of these states are created by the 50 - 50 beam splitter operating on the incoming beam .
the unitaries are the relative phase shift operator , @xmath129 , induced by the sbc , and the which - path momentum kick operator , @xmath130 delivered by the signal mirror .    as shown in fig .
1(b ) , starting in the state @xmath131 , and ending in state @xmath132 , we seek the transition amplitude _ f | u_l_2 u_kw u_u_l_1 u_q | _ i , which describes photons entering in one interferometer port and exiting the other interferometer port
. fortunately , the which - path states pass through all but two of the operators , so this amplitude may be simplified to eliminate the which - path states and operators , giving the state of the transverse beam at the detector , @xmath133 , to be _
wv(x)= x| e^-i p^2l_2/2k_0 ( k x + /2 ) e^-i p^2l_1/2k_0 e^i q x | . the detailed calculation of this state involves inserting complete sets of states , resulting in a complicated expression
. the result is simplified by expanding to linear order in @xmath100 and @xmath91 since we assume the weak value ordering of parameters , @xmath134 .
we must renormalize the post - selected distribution by the probability @xmath35 of a photon exiting the dark port , given by = ( /2)^2 + k^2 ^2 + o(k^2 q^2 ) + o(k q ) +  .
we drop the other terms compared with @xmath135 , so the phase shift @xmath100 controls the post - selection .
this gives an average displacement of x= + + +  where we suppress higher order terms in @xmath136 .
the first term of order @xmath91 is the usual weak value term , amplified by @xmath137 @xcite .
the second term comes from the diffraction effects which gives a small correction to the first term because we take @xmath138 .
the remaining term , @xmath139 is just the free propagation from the momentum kick , and has a geometric optics interpretation of the imparted deflection angle @xmath140 times the total length of propagation .
we note that the way @xmath97 enters into the average displacement has a very different form than eq .
( [ y ] ) .
we will return to this shortly .
the displacement variance at the detector may be similarly calculated to find , ( x - x)^2 = ^2 + ( ) ^2 , plus further corrections of order @xmath141 .
thus , we see that the diffraction effects broaden the width of the beam , proportional to the total path length . if we approximate the distribution as a gaussian with the mean and variance discussed above , the fisher information about @xmath91 can be found by averaging over @xmath97 as before to find _ wv = .
consequently , even if @xmath142 is large compared to 1 , so as to degrade the fisher information in the standard method ( [ idirect ] ) , in the weak values technique , there is an additional suppression factor of the amount of diffraction , @xmath143 , indicating that the weak value technique outperforms the standard method when dealing with angular jitter .
this result can be understood intuitively because the angular jitter directly adds to the detected deflection in the standard measurement case , whereas it is only a small correction to the deflection that is controlled by diffraction in the weak value technique .
the rather remarkable properties associated with imaginary weak value experiments may not be entirely attributed to weak values , but to geometric terms associated with the experiments .
these terms , such as beam waist diameter , arise even when wva is small . however , it is important to note only in the limit of large wva that all of the information in the measurement can be placed in the measured photons and that optimal snr estimation of the parameter can be made .
therefore , these geometric terms and wva work hand - in - hand to achieve the technical noise suppression .
we can also consider the possible benefit to the fisher information of the recent photon recycling proposal of dressel _ et al .
_ @xcite . considering photons as a resource
, one can ask what the maximum amount of information can be extracted from a given set of photons . in much the same way
as a high finesse cavity can increase phase sensitivity in an interferometer , recycling photons from the bright port of a weak value experiment can increase the information about a parameter .
the central idea is to postselect all of the photons while keeping the large weak value amplification .
the scheme is to recycle the rejected photons by closing off the interferometer , so the remaining @xmath144 photons are re - injected ( @xmath145 and once again sample the unknown parameter @xmath91 .
the authors show that it is critical that the rejected light be reshaped to once again be in its original profile , otherwise all amplification of the split detector snr is erased over many cycles .
below , we consider the simplest version where no propagation effects are included . in that case , the second round of postselected light has exactly the same distribution on the detector , with the same post - selection probability @xmath35 , so the fisher information for this cycle is @xmath146 .
this process is now repeated many times , where @xmath147 is the number of rejected photons on the @xmath148 round , and we define @xmath149 .
the uniform postselection probability indicates that @xmath150 , implying that @xmath151 .
since each measurement is independent from the last , the fisher information simply adds , giving a total of _ tot = 4 ^2 _
i=0^n_i = 4 ^2 n _
i=0^(1-)^i = .
therefore , the fisher information has been boosted by a factor of @xmath82 compared to the standard method , or the single pass weak value method . here
, we are considering the photon number @xmath7 as the resource .
of course , as is pointed out in ref .
@xcite , one could have been sending more light onto the detector using the standard method in the time taken for the light recycling or employed other standard schemes , but there could be many technical reasons why this may be impossible or inadvisable given a laboratory set - up
. there may be a minimum quiet time between laser pulses , for example , or the detector may have a low light power threshold . we note that the profile reshaping process actually removes information about the parameter @xmath91 , but does so in a way that the estimator can be simply and easily implemented as the split detection snr . together with the technical advantages already discussed
, this is an important improvement over previous techniques .
when further combined with quantum light techniques , this method gives a powerful advantage for estimating a parameter .
the fact that all photons are now collected permits one to further mine interphoton correlations for noise suppression .
we have shown how weak value based measurement techniques can give certain technical advantages to precision metrology .
first and foremost , the fisher information in a weak value measurement ( which uses a small fraction of the available light ) can be as large as the fisher information of a standard measurement ( which uses all of the available light ) .
this is remarkable because the remaining light can be sent to another experiment @xcite , or recycled @xcite to give even higher amounts of fisher information .
we have also explored technical advantages the weak value experiments can have over standard measurement techniques .
obvious advantages , such as when the detectors saturate at a certain light intensity , have been pointed out in previous works @xcite .
the possible advantages for different types of technical noise should be investigated on a case by case basis .
there are cases where the weak value techniques gives advantages , and other cases where it is at a disadvantage , and yet other cases where there is no difference .
it is clear , for example , that dephasing noise will reduce the size of the weak value , which will be detrimental to this technique @xcite .
we have shown how detector noise , together with air turbulence can both be eliminated by a weak value deflection measurement , whereas the conventional standard method must suffer from turbulence jitter if detector noise is suppressed in open air experiments .
we also demonstrated that for angular jitter , the weak value technique for beam deflection measurements can have much higher fisher information than the standard technique . considering the wide range of experiments that have now successfully employed weak value techniques to make high precision measurements @xcite , this should not be too surprising .
another conclusion we reach is that it is not sufficient to show an estimator does not reach the crb to decide it should be rejected . rather , the optimal estimator should be found , and must be practically implementable . if it is not , the inefficient - but practical - estimator is superior .
we have argued that time - correlated technical noise is one example where the difficulty of implementing the optimal estimator is outweighed by the option of implementing the postselection with amplification .
we acknowledge support from the us army research office grants no .
62270phii : stir , no .
w911nf-09 - 0 - 01417 , no
. w911n-12 - 1 - 0263 , as well as the national science foundation grant no .
dmr-0844899 .
we thank y. aharonov , j. tollaksen , g. c. knee , e. m. gauger , j. dressel , and h. wiseman for helpful comments on the manuscript .
our calculations are based on an interaction of the type @xmath152 , where @xmath0 is the unknown small parameter .
tracking / measurements of the meter degree of freedom @xmath1 after the postselection gives a snr of @xmath153 .
if instead , measurements of the conjugate momentum @xmath4 are performed , the result is @xmath154 @xcite . we will show that under the right choices for pre- and post - selection , @xmath155 or @xmath156 .
we chose to consider the operator @xmath157 such that @xmath158 , where @xmath159 and @xmath160 form an orthonormal basis for the hilbert space of a two - level system .
the initial state of the system can be written as @xmath161 where @xmath162 and @xmath163 represent the qubit state on the surface of the bloch sphere .
the postselection state for the system is defined as @xmath164 where @xmath165 and @xmath100 are angles representing the deviation ( in both angular directions on the bloch sphere , see fig .  [ sphere ] ) from the state orthogonal to @xmath166 .    representation on the bloch sphere of the preselection and postselection states for @xmath167 .
the state @xmath166 corresponds to a unit vector anywhere on the equatorial plane , and the state @xmath168 is off to be antiparallel to @xmath166 in the two angular directions .
the angle @xmath169 ( @xmath170 ) gives origin to the real ( imaginary ) part of the weak value . ]      note that the angles @xmath165 and @xmath100 are the respective generators of the real and the imaginary part of the weak value .
for example , a pure imaginary weak value can be obtained making @xmath172 , so @xmath173 and @xmath174 . in order to maximize @xmath35 we choose @xmath167 ,
so the results are @xmath175/\sqrt{2}$ ] and @xmath176\sqrt{2}$ ] . finally , in the small angle approximation ,
@xmath177 and @xmath178 , making @xmath179 . on the other side
, a pure real weak value can be obtained making @xmath180 , so @xmath181 , and @xmath182 . in order to make @xmath27 large for this case , we choose again @xmath167 .
the preselection is identical to the former case @xmath175/\sqrt{2}$ ] , and the postselection takes the form @xmath183/\sqrt{2}+\cos\theta\left[|+\rangle - e^{i\phi}|-\rangle\right]/\sqrt{2}$ ] . taking the small angle approximation for this case we obtain a similar result to the pure imaginary weak value case , @xmath184 , @xmath185 , and @xmath186 .
setting @xmath167 turns out to be the best choice for practical purposes .
we therefore calculate the products @xmath187 and @xmath188 for such a choice , and plot them in fig .
[ plots ] .
it is shown in fig .
[ plots](a ) that the largest value @xmath189 is closest reached if @xmath180 and @xmath190 , which corresponds to a pure real weak value and an almost orthogonal postselection .
similarly , fig .
[ plots](b ) shows that @xmath191 only if @xmath172 and @xmath192 , defining a pure imaginary weak value with almost orthogonal postselection .
in this case the interaction takes the form @xmath193 , where tracking the beam s transverse position corresponds to an imaginary weak value .
we also note that while knee and gauger treat imaginary weak values in their appendix b , they do not consider the addition of technical noise in this case , and further compare the fisher information of @xmath91 in the imaginary weak value case against a standard strategy measurement of @xmath1 ( equivalent to not having a lens in fig .
1(a ) ) , which are different parameters .


this article is on the one hand on models of weak arithmetics and on the other on proof complexity , i.e. the question of how long formal proofs of tautologies have to be in given proof systems .
therefore the introduction will consist of two parts , one for each subject .
models of weak arithmetics , like @xmath3 , have been extensively studied for several reasons .
they are possibly the simplest objects whose theories bear enough strength to do a good part of mathematics in , yet they are weak enough to allow for a certain kind of constructiveness . the latter has been demonstrated over and over again by various results connecting weak arithmetic theories with complexity classes and computability .
we are interested in the strength of the theory obtained by restricting our objects of reasoning to a small initial part of a given model .
since a two - sorted theory , such as , is much stronger on its number part than on its set part , it is likely that such a cut is a model of a supposedly much stronger theory .
indeed we will see in section  [ sec : polylog cuts ] that certain cuts of models of  are models of the provably stronger theory @xmath1 .
this strengthens a result by paris and wilkie @xcite@xcite , who show that such cuts are models of @xmath4 .
in fact they work in a more general setting and , following our argumentation , their result readily implies the sub exponential simulation of @xmath5-frege by @xmath2-frege from bonet , domingo , gavald , maciel , and pitassi @xcite .
proof complexity , on the other hand , more or less began when cook and reckhow @xcite discovered the close connection between the lengths of formal proofs in propositional proof systems and standard complexity classes .
this connection yields a possibility of dealing with the @xmath6 question by asking , whether there exists a propositional proof system that is polynomially bounded .
we will not directly address this question here , but rather explore the relative strengths of two major proof systems , frege and bounded depth frege .
these proof systems have been extensively studied , due to their natural appearance as classical calculi , such as gentzen s pk , and it is well known that frege systems are stronger than bounded depth frege systems , as the former system has polynomial size proofs for the pigeonhole principle ( see @xcite ) , while the latter does not ( see @xcite and @xcite ) . lately ,
filmus , pitassi and santhanam @xcite have proved a sub exponential simulation of frege by bounded depth frege using a combinatoric argument . in section  [ sec : impl proof cmpl ] we will obtain the same result by an application of our result about cuts to the provability of the reflection principle for frege in bounded depth frege . currently cook , ghasemloo and nguyen @xcite are working on a purely syntactical proof that gives a slightly better result with respect to the strength of the simulated proof system .
the paper is built - up as follows . in section [ sec : preliminaries ] we briefly recapture some basics about complexity theory , bounded arithmetic , proof complexity and the various connections between them .
as this is only expository it might be helpful to consult some of the references for a more detailed introduction ( see @xcite , @xcite and @xcite ) .
after that , in section  [ sec : polylog cuts ] we prove a formalization of nepomnjascij s theorem in the polylogarithmic cut of a model of @xmath0 . using a standard algorithm for evaluating circuits and then applying the formalized version of nepomnjascij s theorem we can conclude that this cut is indeed a model of @xmath1 .
finally , in section  [ sec : impl proof cmpl ] , we apply this result to prove that a version of the bounded reflection principle of frege is provable in @xmath0 .
this , together with a standard argument linking the provability of reflection principles with simulation results , yields the sub exponential simulation of frege by bounded depth frege .
we assume familiarity with turing machines , circuits and standard complexity classes such as @xmath7 , @xmath8 , @xmath9 , @xmath10 , @xmath11 and so on .
see for example @xcite for an introduction .
we will not work a lot within these classes , but rather apply known relations between such classes and weak arithmetic theories .
we will work in a two - sorted arithmetic setting , having one sort of variables representing numbers and the second sort representing bounded sets of numbers .
we identify such bounded subsets with strings .
see @xcite for a thorough introduction .
the underlying language , denoted , consists of the following relation , function and constant symbols:@xmath12    an -structure @xmath13 consists of a first - sort universe @xmath14 of numbers and a second - sort universe @xmath15 of bounded subsets of numbers .
if @xmath13 is a model of the two - sorted theory @xmath0 ( see [ sec vz ] ) , then the functions @xmath16 and @xmath17 are the addition and multiplication on the universe of numbers . @xmath18 and @xmath19 are interpreted as the appropriate elements zero and one with respect to addition and multiplication .
the relation @xmath20 is an ordering relation on the first - sort universe .
the function @xmath21 maps an element of the set sort to its largest element plus one ( i.e. to an element of the number sort ) .
the relation @xmath22 is interpreted as equality between numbers , @xmath23 is interpreted as equality between bounded sets of numbers .
the relation @xmath24 holds for a number @xmath25 and a set of numbers @xmath26 if and only if @xmath25 is an element of @xmath26 .
the standard model of two - sorted peano arithmetic will be denoted as @xmath27 .
it consists of a first - sort universe @xmath28 and a second - sort universe @xmath29 of all finite subsets of @xmath30 .
the symbols are interpreted in the usual way .
we denote the first - sort ( number ) variables by lower - case letters @xmath31 , and the second - sort ( set ) variables by capital letters @xmath32 . in case
it helps to describe the meaning of a variable we will use lower case words for first - sort and words starting with a capital letter for second - sort variables .
we can build formulas in the usual way , using two sorts of quantifiers , number quantifiers and string quantifiers . a number quantifier @xmath33 ( @xmath34 )
is bounded if it is of the form @xmath35 ( @xmath36 ) for some number term @xmath37 .
a string quantifier @xmath38 ( @xmath39 ) is bounded if it is of the form @xmath40 ( @xmath41 ) for some number term @xmath37 .
a formula is bounded iff all its quantifiers are .
all formulas in this paper will be bounded .
a formula @xmath42 is in @xmath43 ( or @xmath44 ) if it uses no string quantifiers and all number quantifiers are bounded .
a formula @xmath42 is a @xmath45 ( or @xmath46 ) if it is of the form @xmath47 ( or @xmath48 ) , where @xmath49 ( or @xmath50 , respectively ) .
if a relation or predicate can be defined by both a @xmath51 and a @xmath52 formula , then we call it @xmath53 definable
. the _ depth _ of a formula is the maximal number of alternations of its logical connectives and quantifiers .    as mentioned before we will represent a bounded set of numbers @xmath26 by a finite string @xmath54 such that @xmath55 if and only if @xmath56 .
we will abuse notation and identify bounded sets and strings , i.e. @xmath26 and @xmath57 .
further , we will encode monotone propositional formulas inductively as binary trees in the standard way , giving a node the value @xmath19 if it corresponds to a conjunction and the value @xmath18 , if it corresponds to a disjunction .
binary trees are encoded as strings as follows .
if position @xmath58 contains the value of a node @xmath59 , then the value of its left successor is contained in position @xmath60 , while the value of its right successor is in @xmath61 .
we restate some basic definitions introduced in @xcite .
[ def pps ] a _ propositional proof system ( pps ) _ is a surjective polynomial - time function @xmath62 , where @xmath63 is the set of propositional tautologies ( in some natural encoding ) .
a string @xmath64 with @xmath65 is called a _ @xmath66-proof _ of @xmath67 .
we can define a quasi ordering on the class of all pps as follows .
[ def : simulation ] let @xmath68 be propositional proof systems .
@xmath69    @xmath66 simulates @xmath70 ( in symbols @xmath71 ) , iff there is a polynomial @xmath72 , such that for all @xmath73 there is a @xmath74 with @xmath75 , such that for all @xmath76 with @xmath77 , @xmath78 .
if there is a polynomial time machine that takes @xmath70-proofs and produces @xmath66-proofs for the same formula we say that @xmath66 p - simulates @xmath70 ( in symbols @xmath79 ) .
if @xmath66 and @xmath70 mutually ( p-)simulate each other , we say that they are ( p-)equivalent ( in symbols @xmath80 and @xmath81 , respectively ) .    in this article we will be mainly interested in bounded depth frege systems and some of their extensions .
a frege system is a typical textbook proof system , such as gentzen s propositional calculus pk .
we will only sketch a single rule of such a system as an example and refer the interested reader to standard logic textbooks .
here , @xmath82 and @xmath83 are sets of formulas while @xmath84 is a formula .
@xmath85 is read as `` the conjunction of all formulas in @xmath83 implies the disjunction of all formulas in @xmath82 '' .
the cut rule therefore says that , if @xmath83 implies @xmath84 or @xmath82 , and @xmath83 and @xmath84 imply @xmath82 , then @xmath83 already implies @xmath82 .
the formula @xmath84 is called the _ cut formula_.    in a bounded depth frege system the depths of all formulas in a derivation are bounded by some global constant .
this is equivalent to being representable by an @xmath2 circuit .
thus we also call bounded depth frege @xmath2-frege .
if the formulas are unbounded , we speak of @xmath86-frege or simply of frege .
we readily get    @xmath87 .
a pps @xmath66 is _ polynomially bounded _
iff there is a polynomial @xmath72 such that every tautology @xmath67 has a @xmath66-proof @xmath64 with @xmath88 .
we are interested in the existence of polynomially bounded pps .
this is , at least in part , due to the following theorem .
@xmath89    an easier task than searching for a polynomially bounded pps might be to find some pps with sub exponential bounds to the lengths of proofs .
this corresponds to the question , whether sub exponential time nondeterministic turing machines can compute @xmath90-complete languages . to explore the existence of such systems we generalize definition  [ def : simulation ] .
let @xmath68 be propositional proof systems and @xmath91 a family of increasing functions on @xmath30 .
@xmath69    @xmath66 @xmath91-simulates
@xmath70 ( in symbols @xmath92 ) , iff there is a function @xmath93 , such that for all @xmath73 there is a @xmath74 with @xmath75 , such that for all @xmath76 with @xmath77 , @xmath94 .    if there is an @xmath95-machine that that takes @xmath70-proofs and produces @xmath66-proofs for the same formula we say that @xmath66 @xmath91-computably simulates @xmath70 ( in symbols @xmath96 ) .
if @xmath66 and @xmath70 mutually @xmath91-(computably ) simulate each other , we say that they are @xmath91-(computably ) equivalent ( in symbols @xmath97 and @xmath98 , respectively ) .
we say a pps @xmath66 _ sub exponentially simulates _ a pps @xmath70 iff the above @xmath91 can be chosen as a class of @xmath99 functions .
the base theory we will be working with is @xmath0 .
it consists of the following axioms :    here , the axioms * basic 1 * through * basic 12 * are the usual axioms used to define peano arithmetic without induction ( @xmath100 ) , which settle the basic properties of addition , multiplication , ordering , and of the constants 0 and 1 .
the axiom * l1 * says that the length of a string coding a finite set is an upper bound to the size of its elements .
* l2 * says that @xmath101 gives the largest element of @xmath102 plus @xmath103 .
* se * is the extensionality axiom for strings which states that two strings are equal if they code the same sets . finally , * @xmath43-comp * is the comprehension axiom schema for @xmath43-formulas ( it is an axiom for each such formula ) and implies the existence of all sets , which contain exactly the elements that fulfill any given @xmath43 property .
the theory  proves the induction axiom schema for @xmath43 formulas @xmath104 : @xmath105    when speaking about theories we will always assume that the theories are two - sorted theories as in @xcite .
the following is a basic notion :    [ def : two - sorted definabilty ] let @xmath106 be a theory over the language @xmath107 and let @xmath104 be a set of formulas in the language @xmath108 .
a number function @xmath37 is @xmath109-definable in a theory @xmath110 iff there is a formula @xmath111 in @xmath104 such that @xmath110 proves @xmath112 and it holds that @xmath113 a string function @xmath91 is @xmath109-definable in a theory @xmath110 iff there is a formula @xmath114 in @xmath104 such that @xmath110 proves @xmath115 and it holds that @xmath116 finally , a relation @xmath117 is @xmath109-definable iff there is a formula @xmath118 in @xmath119 such that it holds that @xmath120    moreover we wish to talk about sequences coded by strings or numbers . for a string @xmath102 we let
@xmath121 $ ] be the @xmath122th bit of @xmath102 . assuming a tupling function @xmath123 we can also talk of @xmath124-ary relations for any constant @xmath124 .
we refer to @xmath125 $ ] , to say that the objects @xmath126 are in the relation @xmath102 ( which is equivalent to saying that the predicate @xmath102 holds for the number @xmath127 , i.e. that the @xmath102 contains that number as an element ) . for the sake of simplicity we also refer to @xmath128 $ ] by @xmath129 $ ] .    using @xmath124-ary relations we can also encode sequences of bounded numbers @xmath130 by @xmath131x[\langle i,1\rangle]\dots x[\langle i , k\rangle]$ ] in binary .
matrices and so on can obviously be formalized in the same way .    given a string
@xmath132 $ ] representing a @xmath124-ary relation , we denote the @xmath133-ary substring with parameters @xmath134 by @xmath135 $ ] .
for example we refer to the element @xmath136 of a given matrix @xmath137 $ ] as @xmath138 $ ] , a string representing @xmath136 in binary .
observe that this substring can be @xmath43 defined in @xmath0 .
given a number @xmath58 we denote by @xmath139 the @xmath140th number in the sequence encoded by @xmath58 .
to do this we assume a fixed @xmath43 definable encoding of numbers that is injective .
the sequence itself will be addressed as @xmath141 .
as above , we can also talk about matrices , etc . in this way , i.e. read such a sequence as a sequence of @xmath124-tuples .
we want to identify strings of short length with sequences of numbers .
thus , given a string @xmath102 of length @xmath142 we can @xmath43-define ( in @xmath0 ) a number @xmath143 that codes a sequence @xmath141 , such that @xmath121=\langle x\rangle_i$ ] for all @xmath144 and vice versa .
we will use @xmath145 and @xmath146 $ ] to denote the above identification .
observe that @xmath25 has to be very small in order to be able to do the above in @xmath0 .      given
a polynomially bounded turing machine @xmath84 in a binary encoding , we can @xmath147 define a predicate @xmath148 , that states that @xmath102 is accepted by @xmath84 .
this can readily be observed , since , provided some machine @xmath84 , there is a constant number of states @xmath149 and the whole computation can be written into a matrix @xmath150 of polynomial size . that @xmath150 is indeed a correct computation
can then be easily checked , because the computations are only local .
more precisely let @xmath151 be given , where the @xmath152 are different states , with @xmath153 being the initial state and @xmath154 being the accepting state and @xmath155 is the transition function with domain @xmath156 and range @xmath157 , which describes what the machine does .
i.e. if @xmath158 , then if the machine is in state @xmath159 and reads @xmath160 , it replaces @xmath160 by @xmath161 , goes into state @xmath162 and moves one position on the tape in the direction @xmath163 .
for our formalization we will assume a function @xmath164 and interpret it in the following way , @xmath165 , where we identify @xmath166 .
let the polynomial @xmath72 bound the running time of @xmath84 , then we can formalize @xmath148 as follows @xmath167\rangle_1 = x[i]\land i > 0\rightarrow \langle      w[\langle 0,i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2 = 0 \land \langle w[\langle 0,0,\cdot      \rangle]\rangle_2=1)\land\\ & i\geq{\left\vertx\right\vert}\rightarrow(\langle w[\langle 0,i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1 = 0 \land      \langle w[\langle 0,i,\cdot\rangle]\rangle_2=0)\land\\ & \langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2      = 0\rightarrow ( \langle w[\langle j+1,i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1=      \langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\land\\ &      \langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2      = \alpha\rightarrow ( \langle w[\langle j+1,i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1=      \langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_2\land\\ &      \hspace{0.2cm}(\langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_3=0 \rightarrow      \langle w[\langle j+1,i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2=      \langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_1)\land\\ &      \hspace{0.2cm}(\langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_3=1 \rightarrow      \langle w[\langle j+1,i{\mathbin{\setbox0\hbox{$-$}\setbox2\hbox to\wd0{\hss$^{\mkern1mu\cdot}$\hss}\wd2=0pt\box2\box0}}1,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2=      \langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_1)\land\\ &      \hspace{0.2cm}(\langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_3=2 \rightarrow      \langle w[\langle j+1,i+1,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2=      \langle\delta(\alpha,\langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_1)\rangle_1))\land\\ &      ( i\neq i'\rightarrow ( \langle w[\langle j , i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2>0\rightarrow      \langle w[\langle j , i',\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2=0))\land      w[\langle p({\left\vertx\right\vert}),i,\cdot \rangle]\rangle_2 = k ) .    \end{split}\ ] ]    thus , in plain english , @xmath148 says that there exists a matrix @xmath150 of pairs of numbers that witnesses an accepting computation of @xmath84 . here ,
@xmath168\rangle$ ] is supposed to code the @xmath140th cell on the turing machine s tape after @xmath122 steps of computations on input @xmath102 .
as noted above , @xmath168\rangle_1 $ ] is a binary number , which is the value of the cell , @xmath169\rangle_2 $ ] is a number coding the state the machine is in iff the pointer is on that cell .
the second and third line of the definition say that the tape in the initial step contains @xmath102 padded with zeroes in the end to get the proper length @xmath170 and that the read / write head is in its starting state and position .
the fourth line says that if the read / write head is not on cell @xmath122 , then nothing happens to the content of cell @xmath122 .
the fifth line says that the content of the cell , where the read / write head is in step @xmath140 , is changed according to @xmath155 .
the next three lines tell us where the read / write head moves .
the last line says that there is at most one position on the tape where the read / write head may be at any step and that the state after the last step is accepting .
we also define a @xmath147-predicate @xmath171 that says that @xmath84 reaches configuration @xmath172 from configuration @xmath173 in at most @xmath174 many steps .
this is essentially the same predicate as @xmath175 , with the constraints on the initial and accepting state lifted and instead a constraint added that the first line of computation is @xmath173 and the last is @xmath172 .
we omit the details as it does not severely differ from the above definition of @xmath175 .
the theory  serves as our base theory to describe complexity classes by arithmetical means .    the problem , whether a given monotone formula @xmath176 of size @xmath177 and depth @xmath178 is satisfiable under a given assignment @xmath179 is @xmath2-complete for @xmath86 .
therefore cook and nguyen ( @xcite ) define the class @xmath1 as @xmath0 augmented by the axiom @xmath180 , where @xmath181 so , @xmath182 states that there is an evaluation @xmath173 of the monotone formula represented by @xmath183 under the assignment given by @xmath179 of length at most @xmath184 . more specifically , @xmath183 is a tree - encoding of the formula , where @xmath185 is true , if node @xmath58 is @xmath186 and false , if @xmath58 is @xmath187 .
the evaluation @xmath173 takes the value of the variables given by @xmath179 and then evaluates the formula in a bottom - up fashion using a standard tree encoding .
thus , the value of the formula can be read at @xmath188 .
it is interesting to observe that @xmath182 does not hold in @xmath0 .
this is , since an application of the witnessing theorem for @xmath0 to a proof of @xmath182 would yield an @xmath2-definition of satisfaction for monotone @xmath86 circuits .
this implies that monotone @xmath189 , which is known to be false .      in this section we will remind the reader of a connection between the theory @xmath0 and some of its extensions and certain propositional proof systems ( see also @xcite@xcite ) .
the following predicates will be subsequently used .
they are definable with respect to @xmath0 ( see @xcite ) .
@xmath69    @xmath190 is a @xmath43 formula that says that the the string @xmath102 codes a formula .
@xmath191 is the @xmath192 definable property that the truth assignment @xmath193 satisfies the formula @xmath102 .
@xmath194 is the @xmath195 formula @xmath196 , where @xmath197 is an upper bound to the number of variables in formulas coded by strings of length @xmath101 .
@xmath198 is a @xmath43 definable predicate meaning @xmath199 is a depth @xmath161 frege proof for @xmath84 .
@xmath200 is a @xmath43 definable predicate meaning @xmath199 is a frege proof for @xmath84 .    the following holds    [ fact : vz and bd frege ] the theory @xmath0 proves that @xmath2-frege is sound , i.e. for every @xmath161 @xmath201    [ fact : vnc1 and nc1 frege ] the theory @xmath1 proves that frege is sound , i.e. @xmath202    on the other hand , provability of the universal closure of @xmath43 formulas in @xmath0 and @xmath1 implies the existence of polynomial size proofs of their propositional translations in @xmath2-frege and frege , respectively .
the propositional translation @xmath203 of a @xmath43 formula @xmath204 is a family of propositional formulas built up inductively ( on the logical depth ) as follows .
if @xmath176 is atomic and does not contain second sort variables , we evaluate @xmath176 in @xmath27 , if it contains second sort variables , we have to introduce propositional variables . if @xmath176 is a boolean combination of formulas @xmath205 of lower depth , the translation is simply the same boolean combination of the translations of the @xmath205 . if @xmath176 is @xmath206 or @xmath207 we translate it to the disjunction or conjunction of the translations , respectively . for a proper definition see @xcite .
[ fact : polynomial simulation ] there exists a polynomial @xmath72 such that for all @xmath43 formulas @xmath204 the following holds    @xmath69    if @xmath208 , then there exist bounded depth frege proofs of all @xmath209 of length at most @xmath210 , for any @xmath211 .
if @xmath212 , then there exist frege proofs of all @xmath209 of length at most @xmath210 , for any @xmath211 .    these proofs are effective in the sense that for any such @xmath176 there exists a polynomial - time computable function @xmath213 that maps any tuple @xmath214 to the above proofs of @xmath215 .
facts  [ fact : vz and bd frege ] and [ fact : vnc1 and nc1 frege ] are examples of general principles , the so called _ reflection principles _ , which are defined as follows .
[ reflection principle ] let @xmath66 be a pps . then the _ reflection principle _ for @xmath66 , @xmath216 , is the @xmath217-formula ( w.r.t .
@xmath0 ) @xmath218 where @xmath219 is a @xmath192-predicate formalizing @xmath66-proofs .
reflection principles condense the strength of propositional proof systems . in what follows we will summarize some such results for the proof systems and theories used here .
a detailed exposition can be found in @xcite , chapter x , or in @xcite , chapter 9.3 .
[ thm simulation by reflection ] if @xmath220 then bounded depth frege p - simulates frege
.    we will only give a brief sketch of the proof here and leave out the technical details .
let @xmath176 be a formula and @xmath221 a frege proof of @xmath176 which is witnessed by a turing machine @xmath222 ( cf def  [ def pps ] ) .
since @xmath0 proves @xmath223 , by facts  [ fact : vz and bd frege ] and [ fact : polynomial simulation ] we have polynomial size proofs of its translations @xmath224 in bounded depth frege . bounded depth frege itself , however , is strong enough to verify that a proper encoding of the computation of @xmath222 on input @xmath225 is correct .
thus it can verify that @xmath221 is a frege - proof and , using the translation of the reflection principle and the cut rule , conclude @xmath226 . from this
@xmath176 follows , cf .
@xcite lemma  9.3.7 .
given a term @xmath197 and a variable @xmath58 , we can also introduce the @xmath197-bounded version of the reflection principle for some given pps @xmath66 , @xmath227 that claims soundness only for @xmath197-bounded proofs .
[ bounded reflection ] let @xmath197 be a @xmath228-term , @xmath58 a first - sort variable and @xmath66 a pps .
then the _ bounded reflection principle _
@xmath227 is the formula @xmath229    we can now generalize theorem  [ thm simulation by reflection ] in the following way .
[ thm simulation by bounded reflection ] let @xmath197 be a @xmath228-term and @xmath58 a number variable . if @xmath230 for @xmath58 large enough and if @xmath231 then for every propositional formula @xmath176 with a frege proof of length @xmath232 there is a bounded depth frege proof of @xmath176 of length @xmath233 .
this proof can be efficiently constructed .
the proof is the same as that of theorem  [ thm simulation by reflection ] . using the bounded reflection principle
we can encode frege proofs of length @xmath232 as bounded depth frege proofs of length @xmath233 .    as a corollary we get
if @xmath234 for all @xmath235 , then bounded depth frege sub exponentially simulates frege : for all @xmath236 exists @xmath237 , such that the existence of a frege proof of length @xmath238 of a depth @xmath239 formula implies the existence of a depth @xmath161 frege proof of length at most @xmath240 .
we will first introduce the notion of a cut @xmath242 of a given two - sorted arithmetic model @xmath243 . this model theoretic approach provides a very good insight on what actually happens semantically with the small elements of arithmetical models .    [ cut ]
let @xmath244 be a two - sorted arithmetic theory and @xmath245 a model of @xmath244 .
@xmath246 of @xmath26 is any substructure such that    @xmath69    @xmath247 , @xmath248 ,    @xmath249 , @xmath250 ,    @xmath251 is closed under @xmath252 and downwards with respect to @xmath253 ,    @xmath254 , and    @xmath255 is the restriction of @xmath256 to @xmath251 and @xmath257 for all relation and function symbols @xmath258 .
we call this cut the _ polylogarithmic cut _ iff @xmath259    to examine the strength of the theory of such cuts of models of @xmath0 , we will show that a formal connection between efficient computability and @xmath43-definability holds .
this stands in contrast to general bounded subsets , where the connection is presumably only with respect to @xmath147-definability via the predicate @xmath175 ( see on page ) .
the intended theorem is a formalization of nepomnjascij s theorem @xcite ( see also @xcite pg.20 ) .
we will sketch the original proof before starting the formalization .
[ thm nepomnjascij ] let @xmath260 and @xmath261 be constants .
then if the language @xmath262 , the relation @xmath263 is definable by a @xmath43-formula over @xmath30 .
we will prove the theorem by induction on @xmath124 for @xmath264 .
let @xmath265 and @xmath266 .
for any @xmath267 the whole computation can be coded by a number @xmath268 of size @xmath269 .
the existence of such a computation gives the desired @xmath43-definability .
for @xmath270 we write a sequence @xmath271 of intermediate results coding the computation , where @xmath272 codes the starting configuration on input @xmath58 , such that we can verify that @xmath273 is computable from @xmath274 in @xmath275 . by assumption
there exists a @xmath43-formula @xmath276 such that @xmath277 holds iff @xmath273 is computed from @xmath274 . additionally , the whole sequence has length @xmath142 and so we can write the sequence of intermediate results @xmath274 as a number @xmath268 of length @xmath142 . now ,
the @xmath43-definition of @xmath263 is simply @xmath278    we will now formalize this result in @xmath0 as follows    [ thm nepomnjascij_formalized ] let @xmath279 .
let @xmath280 for some @xmath281 and let @xmath282 and @xmath283 . if @xmath284 ( for strings of length @xmath238 ) is computed by turing machine @xmath84 , then there exists a @xmath43 definition in @xmath26 of the @xmath147-predicate @xmath285 on the interval @xmath286 $ ] .
i.e. any @xmath287 , bounded by @xmath288 is @xmath43-definable in @xmath26 and therefore exists in the polylogarithmic cut of @xmath26 .    the following version of the proof stems from a discussion with stephen cook and neil thapen during the sas programme in cambridge .
it is more explicit than the original one and clarifies the argument .
we will inductively on @xmath161 define a @xmath43 relation @xmath289 that states that the @xmath290th cell of the work tape of @xmath84 , starting on configuration @xmath179 and computing for @xmath291 steps via the computation @xmath292 is @xmath293 .
we will bound the quantifiers in such a way that we can conclude that both variables can be of the number sort .
as @xmath161 depends only on @xmath84 and @xmath124 we will be doing this induction outside of the theory to construct @xmath161 many formulas .
we will then prove the above mentioned properties of @xmath294 by @xmath43 induction on @xmath295 .
keep in mind that a cell is given as a pair @xmath296 , where @xmath297 is the actual value of the cell and @xmath298 is a number @xmath299 coding the state the turing machine is in iff the pointer is on that cell and @xmath18 otherwise . as before the transition function
is denoted by @xmath155 .
we let @xmath179 be a string coding the input at the start of the computation .
that is , @xmath179 is a sequence of length @xmath300 , such that @xmath301=1 $ ] , @xmath302=0 $ ] for all @xmath303 and @xmath304 $ ] is the @xmath140th input bit .
we let @xmath305 be a sequence encoding the computation of @xmath84 , such that @xmath306 is the state , the machine is in after @xmath140 steps ( 0 denotes that the read / write head is not on cell @xmath307 , while a greater number gives the state and witnesses that the read / write head is on cell @xmath307 ) .
@xmath308 is the value of cell @xmath307 after @xmath140 steps of the computation .
observe that this also implies that the computation can be encoded as a number , that is , it has to be very short .
this is straight forward from the quantifier bounds .
we can now define @xmath309\land        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle 1,j',1\rangle } \approx        i[j',1]{\large ) } \land\\   & \phantom{{}\equiv { } }        [ \forall j<\lceil len(i)^{\frac{1-k\epsilon}{k}}\rceil , j'<\lceil          len(i)^{\epsilon}\rceil,\alpha<{\left\verta\right\vert}\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv{}}\hspace{16pt }        ( \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j , j',1\rangle } = 0\rightarrow ( \langle\mathsf{comp }        \rangle_{\langle j , j',0\rangle } = \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j+1,j',0\rangle}))\land\\   & \phantom{{}\equiv{}}\hspace{16pt }        ( \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j , j',1\rangle } =        \alpha\rightarrow(\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv{}}\hspace{24pt }        ( \langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle          j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_3=0\rightarrow       ( \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j+1,j',1\rangle}=\langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_1 \land\\ & \hspace{183 pt }        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j+1,j',0\rangle}=\langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_2))\land\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv{}}\hspace{24pt }        ( \langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle          j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_3=1\rightarrow       \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j+1,j'{\mathbin{\setbox0\hbox{$-$}\setbox2\hbox to\wd0{\hss$^{\mkern1mu\cdot}$\hss}\wd2=0pt\box2\box0}}1,1\rangle}=\langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_1 \land\\ & \hspace{179 pt }        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j+1,j',0\rangle}=\langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_2))\land\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv{}}\hspace{24pt }        ( \langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle          j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_3=2\rightarrow       \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j+1,j'+1,1\rangle}=\langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_1 \land\\ & \hspace{179 pt }        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j+1,j',0\rangle}=\langle \delta(\alpha,\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j , j',0\rangle})\rangle_2))))\land\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv{}}\hspace{16pt }        \forall\ell\neq\ell'<\lceil len(i)^{\epsilon}\rceil (        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle j,\ell,1\rangle}>0\rightarrow        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle          j,\ell',1\rangle}=0)]\land\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv { } }        ( \langle \mathsf{cell}\rangle_1 = \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle p_1,p_2,0\rangle})\land        ( \langle \mathsf{cell}\rangle_2 = \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle p_1,p_2,1\rangle } ) .
\end{split}\ ] ] it is straightforward to prove by induction on the number of lines in @xmath292 that @xmath292 is uniquely defined by @xmath310 .
we let @xmath311 where @xmath312 is some polynomial depending on the encoding . here
it is vital that @xmath312 can be defined such that @xmath313 is a number in @xmath26 .
this is possible due to the quantifier bounds we used when defining @xmath310 .
thus , @xmath314 is defined by a @xmath43 formula .
informally @xmath314 formalizes that there is a computation @xmath315 that is correct in the sense that we can verify that we get from line to line via the transition function of @xmath84 and gives the appropriate values of the cell at @xmath316 .
observe that the size of the whole computation as presented above is linear in @xmath238 , i.e. that it can be coded as a number in @xmath26 .
we will now proceed by inductively defining @xmath294 and @xmath317 .
assume that @xmath318 has already been defined by a @xmath43 formula over @xmath26 .
we then let @xmath319\land        \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle 1,j',1\rangle } \approx        i[j',1])\land\\   & \phantom{{}\equiv { } }        ( \forall j<\lceil len(i)^{\frac{1-k\epsilon}{k}}\rceil\exists\mathsf{comp'}<q(len(i))\forall j'<\lceil        len(i)^{\epsilon}\rceil\exists \mathsf{cell}'<{\left\verta\right\vert}\forall        j''<{\left\verta\right\vert}\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv { } }        ( \langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle          j+1,j',j''\rangle}\leftrightarrow \langle        \mathsf{cell}'\rangle_{j''})\land\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv { } }        \mathsf{reach}^{d{\mathbin{\setbox0\hbox{$-$}\setbox2\hbox to\wd0{\hss$^{\mkern1mu\cdot}$\hss}\wd2=0pt\box2\box0}}1}_a(\langle \mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle        j,\cdot,\cdot\rangle},m^{\frac{1-k\epsilon}{k } } ,        j',\mathsf{cell}',\mathsf{comp'}))\land\\ & \phantom{{}\equiv { } }        ( \langle \mathsf{cell}\rangle_1\leftrightarrow\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle p_1,p_2,0\rangle})\land        ( \langle \mathsf{cell}\rangle_2=\langle\mathsf{comp}\rangle_{\langle p_1,p_2,1\rangle } ) .
\end{split}\ ] ] again , we can prove uniqueness of the computation by induction on the number of its lines and let @xmath320 that this is a @xmath43 definition follows by induction and the same argument as for @xmath314 . here
, the predicate @xmath321 takes the role of the transition function in witnessing that each line follows from the preceding one .
the total size again is linear in @xmath238 .
we now can give a @xmath43 definition of the predicate @xmath322 $ ] coding the computation as in @xmath285 on input @xmath102 of length @xmath288 .
we let @xmath322=\mathsf{cell}\equiv$ ] @xmath323 where @xmath72 is a polynomial depending on the encoding and @xmath324 is the starting configuration of @xmath84 on input @xmath102 .
informally the above formula says that we compute the configurations of @xmath84 by using the predicates @xmath317 through @xmath314 .
that is , after the application of @xmath317 ( i.e. after making the biggest steps ) we have reached configuration @xmath325 , which we plug into @xmath326 to get configuration @xmath327 and so on .
it remains to show that this definition of @xmath328 $ ] coincides with the real one , i.e. that @xmath329 $ ] follows from an application of the transition function of @xmath84 from @xmath330 $ ] .
we will prove this inductively , depending on @xmath122 .
again let @xmath331 be such that @xmath332 . if @xmath333 the assumption follows straightforwardly from the definition of @xmath314 .
now for bigger @xmath122 . if the @xmath334 , given as above , is bigger then @xmath18 then again the assumption follows from the definition of @xmath310 .
now let @xmath335 be the first index with @xmath336 .
we the have to argue that @xmath337 has the desired property .
this , however , follows straightforward if we can verify this assertion for @xmath337 .
observe that @xmath161 is a constant depending only on @xmath84 and @xmath124 , so we need to make this argument only a constant number of steps to reach @xmath310 , where we know that the assertion holds .
since we can code the whole computation as a @xmath43-formula ( in @xmath26 ) , we can easily deduce a @xmath43-definition of the related set by simply stating that the computation accepts ( i.e. that in the last line of the computation the state is accepting ) .
this concludes the proof .
we can now prove our main result .
[ thm : conclusion nepo ] let @xmath338 and @xmath339 be the polylogarithmic cut
. then @xmath340 .
we have to prove that for all strings @xmath341 , representing a formula @xmath176 as a tree and assignments @xmath342 to its variables ( i.e. leafs in the tree representation ) a string @xmath173 exists in @xmath257 that contains all values of @xmath176 s subformulas as in the definition of @xmath182 in section  [ sec : ext of vz ] and satisfies the inductive conditions of @xmath182 .
however , by @xmath43-comprehension and the formalized nepomnjascij s theorem it suffices to describe an algorithm that computes , for given @xmath343 and @xmath179 , whether @xmath122 belongs to @xmath173 in @xmath344 for some @xmath235 and @xmath345 .
the following is a recursive algorithm computing the value of @xmath346 $ ] , given @xmath347 and @xmath122 . `
nodevalue(g , i , i ) `    * ` boolean left ; boolean right ; ` * ` if i>2`@xmath348`|g| ` * * ` output ( 0 ) ; end ; ` * ` else if i>|g| ` * * ` output ( i[i-|g| ] ) ; end ; ` * ` else if g[i]=1 ` * * ` left : = nodeval(g , i,2i ) ; ` * * ` right : = nodeval(g , i,2i+1 ) ; ` * * ` output ( left and right ) ; end ; ` * ` else if g[i]=0 ` * * ` left : = nodeval(g , i,2i ) ; ` * * ` right : = nodeval(g , i,2i+1 ) ; ` * * ` output ( left or right ) ; end ; ` * ` else ` * * ` output ( 0 ) ; end ; `    observe that the algorithm at any given point only stores a constant amount of data per level of the tree @xmath183 and therefore uses only @xmath349 space .
the number steps the algorithm makes is clearly polynomial in the size of @xmath183 .
therefore by theorem  [ thm nepomnjascij_formalized ] , for every monotone formula @xmath176 , representable as a tree in @xmath13 , we get a @xmath43 formula @xmath350 , such that @xmath351 $ ] .
observe that @xmath350 depends on the size of @xmath176 and on its logical depth , as the first is essentially the size of the input for the machine , that @xmath352 codes , while the latter determines the longest iterations in the recursive algorithm .
applying the comprehension schema in @xmath0 , i.e. in @xmath26 , this verifies the existence of a @xmath173 as in @xmath182 for all formulas represented by trees in @xmath13.therefore @xmath182 holds in @xmath13 and so @xmath353 .
we now wish to apply the above results to propositional proof systems .
more precisely we wish to show that theories of small cuts of a model of a given theory @xmath110 correspond to stronger proof systems than @xmath110 does .
an elegant way of showing such a statement is via the _ reflection principles _ of the given proof systems , i.e. the statement that the proof system is correct , as explained in section  [ sec : rel ba pps ] . with their help
we can conclude the following recent result of filmus , pitassi and santhanam @xcite .
[ thm filpitsat ] every frege system is sub exponentially simulated by @xmath2-frege systems .    by theorem  [ thm simulation by bounded reflection ]
we have to prove the polylogarithmically bounded reflection principle for frege in @xmath0 .
this , by theorem  [ thm : conclusion nepo ] however , corresponds to proving the reflection principle for frege in @xmath1 , which holds by fact  [ fact : vnc1 and nc1 frege ] .
it also follows from theorem  [ thm simulation by bounded reflection ] that this proof can be efficiently computed from the frege proof .
another , related , application is in the separation of propositional proof systems . in @xcite
we proved the following .
[ prop iddo me ] for almost every random 3cnf @xmath84 with @xmath25 variables and @xmath354 clauses , where @xmath162 is a large constant , @xmath355 has polynomially bounded @xmath5-frege proofs .    on the other hand it is well known ( see for example @xcite ) that such formulas have no subexponential refutation in resolution .
thus , this yields an average case separation between resolution and @xmath5-frege . we can now extend this result to an average case separation between resolution and @xmath2-frege as follows .    for almost every random 3cnf @xmath84 with @xmath25 variables and @xmath354 clauses , where @xmath162 is a large constant , @xmath355
has subexponentially bounded @xmath2-frege proofs .    by theorem  [ thm : conclusion nepo ]
the polylogarithmic cut of any @xmath0-model is a model of @xmath1 , therefore also of @xmath4 .
this yields , as in our proof of theorem  [ thm filpitsat ] , that @xmath2-frege subexponentially simulates @xmath5-frege .
the result now follows from proposition  [ prop iddo me ] .
as we have seen cuts of models of weak arithmetics constitute an appropriate way for reasoning about super - polynomial simulations between proof systems .
an advantage in comparison to syntactic arguments is the possible applicability of results in model theory and a more uniform treatment .
this can readily be observed as with our argument , e.g. the work of paris and wilkie @xcite@xcite immediately imply the simulation results from bonet et al .
@xcite .
this leads to interesting possibilities for further research , especially towards the weak automatizability of weak propositional proof systems such as resolution . the underlying theory , which was @xmath0 in our argument ,
must be significantly weakened , however .
if we could take @xmath356 as our base theory , we could reason about whether @xmath357 has the feasible interpolation property in the same way as kraj ' iek and pudl ' ak @xcite , bonet , pitassi and raz @xcite or bonet , domingo , gavald , maciel , and pitassi @xcite .
now , if @xmath357 does not have quasi - polynomial feasible interpolation we know by a result from atserias and bonet @xcite that resolution is not weakly automatizable , so we would be finished .
whether we can actually do it depends on the strength of the theory the polylogarithmic cut of @xmath356 models and if we can formalize some sort of iterated multiplication ( such as in @xcite ) in that theory . also , the security of diffie - hellman seems to be a more appropriate assumption than that of rsa , as the computational power needed to verify the correctness of diffie - hellman seems to be lower .
i want to thank steve cook , jan kraj ' iek and neil thapen for helpful suggestions and discussion , emil je ' abek for his comments and for answering my questions and the participants of the maloa special semester in proof complexity in prague 2011 for enduring a sloppy and sometimes faulty exposition of this proof and still coming up with helpful comments .
i also want to thank the anonymous referees for pointing out various mistakes and for giving interesting suggestions .
a similar construction can be extracted from @xcite and leads to similar results , if perceived in the way we did it here .
i want to thank leszek kolodziejczyk for pointing this out .