# Satisfiability, Branch-Width and Tseitin tautologies

- 90 Downloads
- 5 Citations

## Abstract

For a CNF *τ*, let *w* _{ b }(*τ*) be the branch-width of its underlying hypergraph, that is the smallest *w* for which the clauses of *τ* can be arranged in the form of leaves of a rooted binary tree in such a way that for every vertex its descendants and non-descendants have at most *w* variables in common. In this paper we design an algorithm for solving SAT in time \({n^{O(1)}2^{O(w_b(\tau))}}\). This in particular implies a polynomial algorithm for testing satisfiability on instances with branch-width *O*(log *n*). Our algorithm is a modification of the width based automated theorem prover (WBATP) which is a popular (at least on the theoretical level) heuristic for finding resolution refutations of unsatisfiable CNFs, and we call it Branch-Width Based Automated Theorem Prover (BWBATP). As opposed to WBATP, our algorithm always produces regular refutations. Perhaps more importantly, its running time is bounded in terms of a clean combinatorial characteristic that can be efficiently approximated, and that the algorithm also produces, within the same time, a satisfying assignment if *τ* happens to be satisfiable.

In the second part of the paper we investigate the behavior of BWBATP on the well-studied class of Tseitin tautologies. We argue that in this case BWBATP is better than WBATP. Namely, we show that its running time on any Tseitin tautology *τ* is \({|\tau|^{O(1)} \cdot 2^{O(w(\tau\vdash\emptyset))}}\) , as opposed to the obvious bound \({n^{O(w(\tau\vdash\emptyset))}}\) provided by WBATP.

This in particular implies that resolution is automatizable on those Tseitin tautologies for which we know the relation \({w(\tau\vdash\emptyset)\leq O(\log S(\tau))}\). We identify one such subclass and prove partial results toward establishing this relation for larger classes of graphs.

## Keywords

SAT provers Automatizability Branch-width## Subject classification

68Q17 68Q25 68T15 03F20## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- M. Alekhnovich (2004). Mutilated chessboard problem is exponentially hard for resolution.
*Theoretical Computer Science***310**(1-3), 513–525.Google Scholar - Alekhnovich M., Ben-Sasson E., Razborov A., Wigderson A. (2004) Pseudorandom generators in propositional proof complexity. SIAM Journal on Computing 34(1): 67–88zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- M. Alekhnovich & A. Razborov (2003). Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus: non-binomial case.
*Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics***242**, 18-35.Google Scholar - Alekhnovich M., Razborov A. (2008) Resolution is not automatizable unless
*W*[*P*] is tractable. SIAM Journal on Computing 38(4): 1347–1363zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Alon N., Boppana R. (1987) The monotone circuit complexity of Boolean functions. Combinatorica 7(1): 1–22zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- E. Amir & S. McIlraith (2001). Solving Satisfiability using Decomposition and the Most Constrained Subproblem. In
*LICS workshop on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2001)*.Google Scholar - Atserias A., Bonet M. (2004) On the Automatizability of Resolution and Related Propositional Proof Systems. Information and Computation 189(2): 182–201zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- P. Beame & T. Pitassi (1996). Simplified and improved resolution lower bounds. In
*Proceedings of the 37th IEEE FOCS*, 274–282.Google Scholar - E. Ben-Sasson & R. Impagliazzo (1999). Random CNF’ s are Hard for the Polynomial Calculus. In
*Proceedings of the 40th IEEE FOCS*, 415–421.Google Scholar - Ben-Sasson E., Wigderson A. (2001) Short Proofs are Narrow - Resolution made Simple. Journal of the ACM 48(2): 149–169zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Bodlaender H.L. (1993) A Tourist Guide through Treewidth. Acta Cybernetica 11: 1–21zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- M. Bonet & N. Galesi (1999). A study of proof search algorithms for Resolution and Polynomial Calculus. In
*Proceedings of the 40th IEEE FOCS*, 422–431.Google Scholar - Bonet M., Pitassi T., Raz R. (2000) On Interpolation and Automatization for Frege Systems. SIAM Journal on Computing 29(6): 1939–1967zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- S. Chen, T. Lou, P. Papakonstantinou & B. Tang (2011). Width-parameterized SAT: Time-Space Tradeoffs. Technical Report cs.CC/1108.2385, arXiv e-print.Google Scholar
- B. Courcelle, J. A. Makowsky & U. Rotics (2001). On the Fixed Parameter Complexity of Graph Enumeration Problems Definable in Monadic Second Order Logic.
*Discrete Applied Mathematics***108**(1-2), 23–52.Google Scholar - Dantsin E. (1979) Parameters defining the time of tautology recognition by the splitting method. Semiotics and information science 12: 8–17 In RussianMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Erdös P., Rado R. (1960) Intersection theorems for systems of sets. Journal of the London Math. Society 35: 85–90zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- S. Khanna & R. Motwani (1996). Towards a Syntactic Characterization of PTAS. In
*Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing*, 329–337.Google Scholar - J. Krajíček (1992). No counter-example interpretation and interactive computation. In
*Logic from Computer Science*, Y. N. Moschovakis, editor, 287–293. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Lipton R., Tarjan R. (1979) A Separator Theorem for Planar Graphs. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 36: 177–189zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Lipton R., Tarjan R. (1980) Applications of a Planar Separator Theorem. SIAM Journal on Computing 9: 615–627zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- A. A. Razborov (1985). Lower bounds for the monotone complexity of some Boolean functions.
*Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR***281**(4), 798–801. English Translation in*Soviet Math. Dokl*., 31:354-357, 1985.Google Scholar - N. Robertson & P. D. Seymour (1991). Graph minors. X. Obstructions to tree decomposition.
*Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B***52**, 153–190.Google Scholar - Robertson N., Seymour P.D. (1995) Graph minors. XIII. The disjoint paths problem. Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B 63: 65–110zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- G. S. Tseitin (1968). On the complexity of derivations in propositional calculus. In
*Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, Part II*. Consultants Bureau, New-York-London.Google Scholar