An Improved Separation of Regular Resolution from Pool Resolution and Clause Learning

  • Maria Luisa Bonet
  • Sam Buss
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7317)

Abstract

We prove that the graph tautology principles of Alekhnovich, Johannsen, Pitassi and Urquhart have polynomial size pool resolution refutations that use only input lemmas as learned clauses and without degenerate resolution inferences. These graph tautology principles can be refuted by polynomial size DPLL proofs with clause learning, even when restricted to greedy, unit-propagating DPLL search.

Keywords

Partial Order Resolution Variable Polynomial Size General Resolution Empty Clause 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alekhnovich, M., Johannsen, J., Pitassi, T., Urquhart, A.: An exponential separation between regular and general resolution. Theory of Computation 3(4), 81–102 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atserias, A., Fichte, J.K., Thurley, M.: Clause-learning algorithms with many restarts and and bounded-width resolution. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 353–373 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beame, P., Kautz, H.A., Sabharwal, A.: Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 319–351 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beckmann, A., Buss, S.R.: Separation results for the size of constant-depth propositional proofs. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 136, 30–55 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonet, M.L., Galesi, N.: A study of proof search algorithms for resolution and polynomial calculus. In: 40th Annual IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 422–431. IEEE Computer Society (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buss, S.R.: Pool resolution is NP-hard to recognise. Archive for Mathematical Logic 48(8), 793–798 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buss, S.R., Hoffmann, J., Johannsen, J.: Resolution trees with lemmas: Resolution refinements that characterize DLL-algorithms with clause learning. Logical Methods of Computer Science 4, 4:13(4:13), 1–18 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goerdt, A.: Regular resolution versus unrestricted resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing 22(4), 661–683 (1993)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hertel, P., Bacchus, F., Pitassi, T., Van Gelder, A.: Clause learning can effectively p-simulate general propositional resolution. In: Proc. 23rd AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 283–290. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang, W., Yu, X.: A DNF without regular shortest consensus path. SIAM Journal on Computing 16(5), 836–840 (1987)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishnamurthy, B.: Short proofs for tricky formulas. Acta Informatica 22(3), 253–275 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: On the power of clause-learning sat solvers as resolution engines. Artificial Intelligence 172(2), 512–525 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Segerlind, N., Buss, S.R., Impagliazzo, R.: A switching lemma for small restrictions and lower bounds for k-DNF resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing 33(5), 1171–1200 (2004)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stålmarck, G.: Short resolution proofs for a sequence of tricky formulas. Acta Informatica 33(3), 277–280 (1996)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urquhart, A.: A near-optimal separation of regular and general resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing 40(1), 107–121 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Gelder, A.: Pool Resolution and Its Relation to Regular Resolution and DPLL with Clause Learning. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 580–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Gelder, A.: Preliminary Report on Input Cover Number as a Metric for Propositional Resolution Proofs. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 48–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Luisa Bonet
    • 1
  • Sam Buss
    • 2
  1. 1.Lenguajes y Sistemas InformáticosUniversidad Politécnica de CataluñaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations