This talk is intended as a selective survey of proof complexity, focusing on some comparatively weak proof systems that are of particular interest in connection with SAT solving. We will review resolution, polynomial calculus, and cutting planes (related to conflict-driven clause learning, Gröbner basis computations, and pseudo-Boolean solvers, respectively) and some proof complexity measures that have been studied for these proof systems. We will also briefly discuss if and how these proof complexity measures could provide insights into SAT solver performance.


Proof System Conjunctive Normal Form Conjunctive Normal Form Formula Proof Complexity Clause Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A.A., Wigderson, A.: Space complexity in propositional calculus. SIAM Journal on Computing 31(4), 1184–1211 (2002), preliminary version appeared in STOC 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Lower bounds for polynomial calculus: Non-binomial case. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics 242, 18–35 (2003),, Preliminary version appeared in FOCS 2001
  3. 3.
    Atserias, A., Dalmau, V.: A combinatorial characterization of resolution width. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 74(3), 323–334 (2008), preliminary version appeared in CCC 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atserias, A., Lauria, M., Nordström, J.: Narrow proofs be maximally long. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2014) (to appear, Jun 2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayardo Jr., R.J., Schrag, R.: Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1997), pp. 203–208 (July 1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beame, P., Beck, C., Impagliazzo, R.: Time-space tradeoffs in resolution: Superpolynomial lower bounds for superlinear space. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2012), pp. 213–232 (May 2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck, C., Nordström, J., Tang, B.: Some trade-off results for polynomial calculus. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2013), pp. 813–822 (May 2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Galesi, N.: Space complexity of random formulae in resolution. Random Structures and Algorithms 23(1), 92–109 (2003), preliminary version appeared in CCC 2001 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Short proofs be spacious: An optimal separation of space and length in resolution. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2008), pp. 709–718 (October 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Understanding space in proof complexity: Separations and trade-offs via substitutions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Innovations in Computer Science (ICS 2011), pp. 401–416 (January 2011), full-length version available at
  11. 11.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple. Journal of the ACM 48(2), 149–169 (2001), preliminary version appeared in STOC 1999Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Biere, A., Berre, D.L., Lonca, E., Manthey, N.: Detecting cardinality constraints in CNF. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2014) (to appear, July 2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blake, A.: Canonical Expressions in Boolean Algebra. Ph.D. thesis. University of Chicago (1937)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonacina, I., Galesi, N.: Pseudo-partitions, transversality and locality: A combinatorial characterization for the space measure in algebraic proof systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2013), pp. 455–472 (January 2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonet, M.L., Galesi, N.: Optimality of size-width tradeoffs for resolution. Computational Complexity 10(4), 261–276 (2001), preliminary version appeared in FOCS 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chvátal, V., Szemerédi, E.: Many hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM 35(4), 759–768 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clegg, M., Edmonds, J., Impagliazzo, R.: Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1996), pp. 174–183 (May 1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic 44(1), 36–50 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook, W., Coullard, C.R., Turn, G.: On the complexity of cutting-plane proofs. Discrete Applied Mathematics 18(1), 25–38 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esteban, J.L., Torn, J.: Space bounds for resolution. Information and Computation 171(1), 84–97 (2001), preliminary versions of these results appeared in STACS 1999 and CSL 1999 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Filmus, Y., Lauria, M., Mikša, M., Nordström, J., Vinyals, M.: Towards an understanding of polynomial calculus: New separations and lower bounds (extended abstract). In: Fomin, F.V., Freivalds, R., Kwiatkowska, M., Peleg, D. (eds.) ICALP 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7965, pp. 437–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Filmus, Y., Lauria, M., Nordström, J., Thapen, N., Ron-Zewi, N.: Space complexity in polynomial calculus (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2012), pp. 334–344 (June 2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gs, M., Pitassi, T.: Communication lower bounds via critical block sensitivity. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2014) (to appear, May 2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theoretical Computer Science 39(2-3), 297–308 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huynh, T., Nordström, J.: On the virtue of succinct proofs: Amplifying communication complexity hardness to time-space trade-offs in proof complexity (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2012), pp. 233–248 (May 2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Impagliazzo, R., Pudlák, P., Sgall, J.: Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus and the Gröbner basis algorithm. Computational Complexity 8(2), 127–144 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Järvisalo, M., Matsliah, A., Nordström, J., Živný, S.: Relating proof complexity measures and practical hardness of SAT. In: Milano, M. (ed.) CP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7514, pp. 316–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP—a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD 1996), pp. 220–227 (November 1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mikša, M., Nordström, J.: Long proofs of (seemingly) simple formulas. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2014) (to appear, July 2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (DAC 2001), pp. 530–535 (June 2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nordström, J.: Pebble games, proof complexity and time-space trade-offs. Logical Methods in Computer Science 9, 15:1–15:63 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pudlák, P.: Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations. Journal of Symbolic Logic 62(3), 981–998 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Urquhart, A.: Hard examples for resolution. Journal of the ACM 34(1), 209–219 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob Nordström
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and CommunicationKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations