  Given a logic presented in a sequent calculus, a natural question is that of
equivalence of proofs: to determine whether two given proofs are equated by any
denotational semantics, ie any categorical interpretation of the logic
compatible with its cut-elimination procedure. This notion can usually be
captured syntactically by a set of rule permutations.
  Very generally, proofnets can be defined as combinatorial objects which
provide canonical representatives of equivalence classes of proofs. In
particular, the existence of proof nets for a logic provides a solution to the
equivalence problem of this logic. In certain fragments of linear logic, it is
possible to give a notion of proofnet with good computational properties,
making it a suitable representation of proofs for studying the cut-elimination
procedure, among other things.
  It has recently been proved that there cannot be such a notion of proofnets
for the multiplicative (with units) fragment of linear logic, due to the
equivalence problem for this logic being Pspace-complete.
  We investigate the multiplicative-additive (without unit) fragment of linear
logic and show it is closely related to binary decision trees: we build a
representation of proofs based on binary decision trees, reducing proof
equivalence to decision tree equivalence, and give a converse encoding of
binary decision trees as proofs. We get as our main result that the complexity
of the proof equivalence problem of the studied fragment is Logspace-complete.
