Advertisement

QRAT Polynomially Simulates \(\forall \text {-Exp+Res}\)

  • Benjamin KieslEmail author
  • Martina Seidl
Conference paper
  • 512 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11628)

Abstract

The proof system \(\forall \text {-Exp+Res}\) formally captures expansion-based solving of quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) whereas the \(\mathsf {QRAT}\) proof system captures QBF preprocessing. From previous work it is known that certain families of formulas have short proofs in \(\mathsf {QRAT}\) but not in \(\forall \text {-Exp+Res}\). However, it was not known if the two proof systems were incomparable (i.e., if there also existed QBFs with short \(\forall \text {-Exp+Res}\) proofs but without short \(\mathsf {QRAT}\) proofs), or if \(\mathsf {QRAT}\) polynomially simulates \(\forall \text {-Exp+Res}\). We close this gap of the QBF-proof-complexity landscape by presenting a polynomial simulation of \(\forall \text {-Exp+Res}\) in \(\mathsf {QRAT}\). Our simulation shows how definition introduction combined with extended-universal reduction can mimic the concept of universal expansion.

References

  1. 1.
    Balabanov, V., Jiang, J.R.: Unified QBF certification and its applications. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 41(1), 45–65 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balabanov, V., Widl, M., Jiang, J.-H.R.: QBF resolution systems and their proof complexities. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 154–169. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_12CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyersdorff, O., Bonacina, I., Chew, L.: Lower bounds: from circuits to QBF proof systems. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2016), pp. 249–260. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyersdorff, O., Chew, L., Janota, M.: On unification of QBF resolution-based calculi. In: Csuhaj-Varjú, E., Dietzfelbinger, M., Ésik, Z. (eds.) MFCS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8635, pp. 81–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44465-8_8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyersdorff, O., Chew, L., Janota, M.: Proof complexity of resolution-based QBF calculi. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2015). LIPIcs, vol. 30, pp. 76–89. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyersdorff, O., Chew, L., Mahajan, M., Shukla, A.: Are short proofs narrow? QBF resolution is not simple. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2016). LIPIcs, vol. 47, pp. 15:1–15:14. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloem, R., Braud-Santoni, N., Hadzic, V., Egly, U., Lonsing, F., Seidl, M.: Expansion-based QBF solving without recursion. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD 2018), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, H.: Proof complexity modulo the polynomial hierarchy: understanding alternation as a source of hardness. In: Proceedings of the 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016). LIPIcs, vol. 55, pp. 94:1–94:14. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.A.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symb. Logic 44(1), 36–50 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egly, U.: On stronger calculi for QBFs. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 419–434. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelder, A.: Variable independence and resolution paths for quantified boolean formulas. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, pp. 789–803. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23786-7_59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heule, M.J.H., Seidl, M., Biere, A.: Solution validation and extraction for QBF preprocessing. J. Autom. Reasoning 58(1), 1–29 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Janota, M.: On Q-resolution and CDCL QBF solving. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 402–418. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_25CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janota, M., Grigore, R., Marques-Silva, J.: On QBF proofs and preprocessing. In: McMillan, K., Middeldorp, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8312, pp. 473–489. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45221-5_32CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janota, M., Klieber, W., Marques-Silva, J., Clarke, E.M.: Solving QBF with counterexample guided refinement. Artif. Intell. 234, 1–25 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janota, M., Marques-Silva, J.: On propositional QBF expansions and Q-resolution. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39071-5_7CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jussila, T., Biere, A., Sinz, C., Kröning, D., Wintersteiger, C.M.: A first step towards a unified proof checker for QBF. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 201–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiesl, B., Heule, M.J.H., Seidl, M.: A little blocked literal goes a long way. In: Gaspers, S., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10491, pp. 281–297. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66263-3_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kiesl, B., Rebola-Pardo, A., Heule, M.J.H.: Extended resolution simulates DRAT. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) IJCAR 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10900, pp. 516–531. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kleine Büning, H., Karpinski, M., Flögel, A.: Resolution for quantified boolean formulas. Inf. Comput. 117(1), 12–18 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lonsing, F., Egly, U.: DepQBF 6.0: a search-based QBF solver beyond traditional QCDCL. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) CADE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10395, pp. 371–384. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63046-5_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peitl, T., Slivovsky, F., Szeider, S.: Dependency learning for QBF. In: Gaspers, S., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10491, pp. 298–313. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66263-3_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slivovsky, F., Szeider, S.: Variable dependencies and Q-resolution. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 269–284. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_21CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slivovsky, F., Szeider, S.: Soundness of Q-resolution with dependency schemes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 612, 83–101 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tentrup, L.: On expansion and resolution in CEGAR based QBF solving. In: Majumdar, R., Kunčak, V. (eds.) CAV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10427, pp. 475–494. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63390-9_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gelder, A.: Contributions to the theory of practical quantified boolean formula solving. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, pp. 647–663. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33558-7_47CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wetzler, N., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt, W.A.: DRAT-trim: efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 422–429. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_31CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Conflict driven learning in a quantified boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design (ICCAD 2002), pp. 442–449. ACM/IEEE Computer Society (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and ComputationTU WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information SecuritySaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Formal Models and VerificationJKU LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations