On Minimal Unsatisfiability and Time-Space Trade-offs for k-DNF Resolution

  • Jakob Nordström
  • Alexander Razborov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6755)


A well-known theorem by Tarsi states that a minimally unsatisfiable CNF formula with m clauses can have at most m − 1 variables, and this bound is exact. In the context of proving lower bounds on proof space in k-DNF resolution, [Ben-Sasson and Nordström 2009] extended the concept of minimal unsatisfiability to sets of k-DNF formulas and proved that a minimally unsatisfiable k-DNF set with m formulas can have at most (mk) k + 1 variables. This result is far from tight, however, since they could only present explicit constructions of minimally unsatisfiable sets with Ω(mk 2) variables.

In the current paper, we revisit this combinatorial problem and significantly improve the lower bound to (Ω(m)) k , which almost matches the upper bound above. Furthermore, using similar ideas we show that the analysis of the technique in [Ben-Sasson and Nordström 2009] for proving time-space separations and trade-offs for k-DNF resolution is almost tight. This means that although it is possible, or even plausible, that stronger results than in [Ben-Sasson and Nordström 2009] should hold, a fundamentally different approach would be needed to obtain such results.


Boolean Function Satisfying Assignment Standard Resolution Proof Complexity Strict Hierarchy 
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.
    Aharoni, R., Linial, N.: Minimal non-two-colorable hypergraphs and minimal unsatisfiable formulas. J. Comb. Theory 43, 196–204 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alekhnovich, M.: Lower bounds for k-DNF resolution on random 3-CNFs. In: Proc. 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 251–256 (May 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A.A., Wigderson, A.: Space complexity in propositional calculus. SICOMP 31(4), 1184–1211 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atserias, A., Bonet, M.L.: On the automatizability of resolution and related propositional proof systems. Info. Comp. 189(2), 182–201 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atserias, A., Bonet, M.L., Esteban, J.L.: Lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle and random formulas beyond resolution. Info. Comp. 176(2), 136–152 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baumer, S., Esteban, J.L., Torán, J.: Minimally unsatisfiable CNF formulas. Bulletin of the EATCS 74, 190–192 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Galesi, N.: Space complexity of random formulae in resolution. Rand. Struc. Alg. 23(1), 92–109 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Short proofs be spacious: An optimal separation of space and length in resolution. In: Proc. 49th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 709–718 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: A space hierarchy for k-DNF resolution. Technical Report TR09-047, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Nordström, J.: Understanding space in proof complexity: Separations and trade-offs via substitutions. In: Proc. 2nd Symposium on Innovations in Computer Science, pp. 401–416 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Wigderson, A.: Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple. J. ACM 48(2), 149–169 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chvátal, V., Szemerédi, E.: Many hard examples for resolution. J. ACM 35(4), 759–768 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esteban, J.L., Galesi, N., Messner, J.: On the complexity of resolution with bounded conjunctions. TCS 321(2-3), 347–370 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krajíček, J.: On the weak pigeonhole principle. Fund. Math. 170(1-3), 123–140 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kullmann, O.: An application of matroid theory to the SAT problem. In: Proc. 15th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, pp. 116–124 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nordström, J.: Narrow proofs be spacious: Separating space and width in resolution. SICOMP 39(1), 59–121 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nordström, J.: Pebble games, proof complexity and time-space trade-offs. Logical Methods in Computer Science (to appear, 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nordström, J., Håstad, J.: Towards an optimal separation of space and length in resolution (Extended abstract). In: Proc. 40th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 701–710 (May 2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Razborov, A.A.: Pseudorandom generators hard for k-DNF resolution and polynomial calculus resolution (manuscript)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Segerlind, N.: Exponential separation between Res(k) and Res(k + 1) for k ≤ εlogn. IPL 93(4), 185–190 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Segerlind, N., Buss, S.R., Impagliazzo, R.: A switching lemma for small restrictions and lower bounds for k-DNF resolution. SICOMP 33(5), 1171–1200 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob Nordström
    • 1
  • Alexander Razborov
    • 2
  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations