Abstract
Modern QBF solvers typically use two different paradigms, conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) solving or expansion solving. Proof systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) provide a theoretical underpinning for the performance of these solvers, with Q-Resolution and its extensions relating to CDCL solving and ∀Exp+Res relating to expansion solving. This article defines two novel calculi, which are resolution-based and enable unification of some of the principal existing resolution-based QBF calculi, namely Q-resolution, long-distance Q-resolution and the expansion-based calculus ∀Exp+Res.
However, the proof complexity of the QBF resolution proof systems is currently not well understood. In this article, we completely determine the relative power of the main QBF resolution systems, settling in particular the relationship between the two different types of resolution-based QBF calculi: proof systems for CDCL-based solvers (Q-resolution, universal, and long-distance Q-resolution) and proof systems for expansion-based solvers (∀Exp+Res and its generalizations IR-calc and IRM-calc defined here).
The most challenging part of this comparison is to exhibit hard formulas that underlie the exponential separations of the aforementioned proof systems. To this end, we exhibit a new and elegant proof technique for showing lower bounds in QBF proof systems based on strategy extraction. This technique provides a direct transfer of circuit lower bounds to lengths-of-proofs lower bounds. We use our method to show the hardness of a natural class of parity formulas for Q-resolution and universal Q-resolution. Variants of the formulas are hard for even stronger systems such as long-distance Q-resolution and extensions.
With a completely different and novel counting argument, we show the hardness of the prominent formulas of Kleine Büning et al. [51] for the strong expansion-based calculus IR-calc.
- Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. 2009. Computational Complexity -- A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. I--XXIV, 1--579 pages. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Albert Atserias and Sergi Oliva. 2014. Bounded-width QBF is PSPACE-complete. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 80, 7 (2014), 1415--1429.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Valeriy Balabanov and Jie-Hong R. Jiang. 2012. Unified QBF certification and its applications. Formal Methods in System Design 41, 1 (2012), 45--65. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Valeriy Balabanov, Jie-Hong Roland Jiang, Mikoláš Janota, and Magdalena Widl. 2015. Efficient extraction of QBF (Counter)models from long-distance resolution proofs. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 3694--3701. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Valeriy Balabanov, Magdalena Widl, and Jie-Hong R. Jiang. 2014. QBF Resolution systems and their proof complexities. In SAT. 154--169.Google Scholar
- Eli Ben-Sasson and Avi Wigderson. 2001. Short proofs are narrow - resolution made simple. J. ACM 48, 2 (2001), 149--169. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marco Benedetti. 2004. Evaluating QBFs via symbolic Skolemization. In LPAR, Franz Baader and Andrei Voronkov (Eds.), Vol. 3452. Springer, 285--300.Google Scholar
- Marco Benedetti and Hratch Mangassarian. 2008. QBF-based formal verification: Experience and perspectives. JSAT 5, 1--4 (2008), 133--191.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Joshua Blinkhorn. 2016. Dependency schemes in QBF calculi: Semantics and soundness. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP. 96--112.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Ilario Bonacina, and Leroy Chew. 2016. Lower bounds: From circuits to QBF proof systems. In Proc. ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS). ACM, 249--260. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikoláš Janota. 2014. On unification of QBF resolution-based calculi. In International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS). Springer, 81--93.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikoláš Janota. 2015. Proof complexity of resolution-based QBF calculi. In Proc. Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS). LIPIcs series, 76--89.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikoláš Janota. 2016. Extension variables in QBF resolution. In Beyond NP, Papers from the 2016 AAAI Workshop.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Meena Mahajan, and Anil Shukla. 2017. Feasible interpolation for QBF resolution calculi. Logical Methods in Computer Science 13 (2017). Issue 2.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Meena Mahajan, and Anil Shukla. 2018. Are short proofs narrow? QBF resolution is not so simple. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 19 (2018). Issue 1. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Renate A. Schmidt, and Martin Suda. 2016. Lifting QBF resolution calculi to DQBF. In SAT.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Karteek Sreenivasaiah. 2019. A game characterisation of tree-like Q-Resolution size. J. Comput. System Sci. 104 (2019), 82--101.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Nicola Galesi, and Massimo Lauria. 2010. A lower bound for the pigeonhole principle in tree-like resolution by asymmetric prover-delayer games. Inform. Process. Lett. 110, 23 (2010), 1074--1077. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Nicola Galesi, and Massimo Lauria. 2013. A characterization of tree-like resolution size. Inform. Process. Lett. 113, 18 (2013), 666--671. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Nicola Galesi, and Massimo Lauria. 2013. Parameterized complexity of DPLL search procedures. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 14, 3 (2013). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Ján Pich. 2016. Understanding Gentzen and Frege systems for QBF. In Proc. ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Armin Biere. 2004. Resolve and expand. In SAT. 238--246.Google Scholar
- Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren, and Toby Walsh (Eds.). 2009. Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 185. IOS Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Armin Biere, Florian Lonsing, and Martina Seidl. 2011. Blocked clause elimination for QBF. In International Conference on Automated Deduction CADE-23. 101--115. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Maria Luisa Bonet, Juan Luis Esteban, Nicola Galesi, and Jan Johannsen. 2000. On the relative complexity of resolution refinements and cutting planes proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 5 (2000), 1462--1484. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Uwe Bubeck and Hans Kleine Büning. 2007. Bounded universal expansion for preprocessing QBF. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT. 244--257. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Samuel R. Buss. 2012. Towards NP-P via proof complexity and search. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 163, 7 (2012), 906--917.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hubie Chen. 2017. Proof complexity modulo the polynomial hierarchy: Understanding alternation as a source of hardness. TOCT 9, 3 (2017), 15:1--15:20. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leroy Chew. 2017. QBF Proof Complexity. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
- Judith Clymo and Olaf Beyersdorff. 2018. Relating size and width in variants of Q-resolution. Inf. Process. Lett. 138 (2018), 1--6.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Stephen A. Cook and Phuong Nguyen. 2010. Logical Foundations of Proof Complexity. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Stephen A. Cook and Robert A. Reckhow. 1979. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 44, 1 (1979), 36--50.Google Scholar
- Uwe Egly. 2016. On stronger calculi for QBFs. In SAT.Google Scholar
- Uwe Egly, Martin Kronegger, Florian Lonsing, and Andreas Pfandler. 2017. Conformant planning as a case study of incremental QBF solving. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 80, 1 (2017), 21--45. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Uwe Egly, Florian Lonsing, and Magdalena Widl. 2013. Long-distance resolution: Proof generation and strategy extraction in search-based QBF solving, See McMillan et al. {57}, 291--308.Google Scholar
- Merrick L. Furst, James B. Saxe, and Michael Sipser. 1984. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Mathematical Systems Theory 17, 1 (1984), 13--27.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Enrico Giunchiglia, Paolo Marin, and Massimo Narizzano. 2009. Reasoning with quantified Boolean formulas. See Biere et al. {23}, 761--780.Google Scholar
- Enrico Giunchiglia, Paolo Marin, and Massimo Narizzano. 2010. sQueezeBF: An effective preprocessor for QBFs based on equivalence reasoning. In SAT, Ofer Strichman and Stefan Szeider (Eds.), Vol. 6175. Springer, 85--98. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- E. Giunchiglia, M. Narizzano, and A. Tacchella. 2006. Clause/term resolution and learning in the evaluation of quantified Boolean formulas. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 26, 1 (2006), 371--416. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexandra Goultiaeva and Fahiem Bacchus. 2013. Recovering and utilizing partial duality in QBF. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT, M. Järvisalo and A. Van Gelder (Eds.). Springer, 83--99. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexandra Goultiaeva, Martina Seidl, and Armin Biere. 2013. Bridging the gap between dual propagation and CNF-based QBF solving. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe, DATE. 811--814. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alexandra Goultiaeva, Allen Van Gelder, and Fahiem Bacchus. 2011. A uniform approach for generating proofs and strategies for both true and false QBF formulas. In IJCAI. 546--553. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Johan Håstad. 1987. Computational Limitations of Small-depth Circuits. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marijn J. H. Heule, Martina Seidl, and Armin Biere. 2017. Solution validation and extraction for QBF preprocessing. J. Autom. Reasoning 58, 1 (2017), 97--125. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mikoláš Janota. 2017. An Achilles’ heel of term-resolution. CoRR abs/1704.01071 (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01071.Google Scholar
- Mikoláš Janota, Radu Grigore, and Joao Marques-Silva. 2013. On QBF proofs and preprocessing, See McMillan et al. {57}, 473--489.Google Scholar
- Mikoláš Janota, William Klieber, Joao Marques-Silva, and Edmund Clarke. 2016. Solving QBF with counterexample guided refinement. Artificial Intelligence 234 (2016), 1--25. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mikoláš Janota and Joao Marques-Silva. 2015. Expansion-based QBF solving versus Q-resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 577 (2015), 25--42. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Toni Jussila, Armin Biere, Carsten Sinz, Daniel Kröning, and Christoph M. Wintersteiger. 2007. A first step towards a unified proof checker for QBF. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT. 201--214. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Hans Kleine Büning and Uwe Bubeck. 2009. Theory of quantified Boolean formulas. See Biere et al. {23}, 735--760.Google Scholar
- Hans Kleine Büning, Marek Karpinski, and Andreas Flögel. 1995. Resolution for quantified Boolean formulas. Inf. Comput. 117, 1 (1995), 12--18. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Hans Kleine Büning, K. Subramani, and Xishun Zhao. 2007. Boolean functions as models for quantified Boolean formulas. J. Autom. Reasoning 39, 1 (2007), 49--75. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- William Klieber, Samir Sapra, Sicun Gao, and Edmund M. Clarke. 2010. A non-prenex, non-clausal QBF solver with game-state learning. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT. 128--142. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jan Krajíček. 1997. Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems and independence results for bounded arithmetic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 62, 2 (1997), 457--486.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Florian Lonsing and Armin Biere. 2010. Integrating dependency schemes in search-based QBF solvers. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT. 158--171. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Florian Lonsing, Uwe Egly, and Allen Van Gelder. 2013. Efficient clause learning for quantified Boolean formulas via QBF pseudo unit propagation. In Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT. 100--115. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kenneth L. McMillan, Aart Middeldorp, and Andrei Voronkov (Eds.). 2013. Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, LPAR. Springer.Google Scholar
- Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Tomás Peitl, Friedrich Slivovsky, and Stefan Szeider. 2016. Long distance Q-resolution with dependency schemes. In SAT. 500--518.Google Scholar
- Pavel Pudlák. 1997. Lower bounds for resolution and cutting planes proofs and monotone computations. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 62, 3 (1997), 981--998.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Pavel Pudlák and Russell Impagliazzo. 2000. A lower bound for DLL algorithms for SAT. In Proc. 11th Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 128--136. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jussi Rintanen. 2007. Asymptotically optimal encodings of conformant planning in QBF. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 1045--1050. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ronald L. Rivest. 1987. Learning decision lists. Machine Learning 2, 3 (1987), 229--246. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John Alan Robinson. 1965. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM 12, 1 (1965), 23--41. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marko Samer. 2008. Variable dependencies of quantified CSPs. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning - LPAR. 512--527. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marko Samer and Stefan Szeider. 2009. Backdoor sets of quantified Boolean formulas. J. Autom. Reasoning 42, 1 (2009), 77--97. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Horst Samulowitz and Fahiem Bacchus. 2006. Binary clause reasoning in QBF. In SAT, Armin Biere and Carla P. Gomes (Eds.), Vol. 4121. Springer, 353--367. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nathan Segerlind. 2007. The complexity of propositional proofs. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13, 4 (2007), 417--481.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Friedrich Slivovsky and Stefan Szeider. 2016. Soundness of Q-resolution with dependency schemes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 612 (2016), 83--101. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Allen Van Gelder. 2011. Variable independence and resolution paths for quantified Boolean formulas. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP. 789--803. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Allen Van Gelder. 2012. Contributions to the theory of practical quantified Boolean formula solving. In CP, Michela Milano (Ed.), Vol. 7514. Springer, 647--663.Google Scholar
- Allen Van Gelder. 2013. Primal and dual encoding from applications into quantified Boolean formulas. In CP. 694--707.Google Scholar
- H. Vollmer. 1999. Introduction to Circuit Complexity -- A Uniform Approach. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lintao Zhang and Sharad Malik. 2002. Conflict driven learning in a quantified Boolean satisfiability solver. In ICCAD. 442--449. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lintao Zhang and Sharad Malik. 2002. Towards a symmetric treatment of satisfaction and conflicts in quantified boolean formula evaluation. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP. 200--215. http://link.springer.de/link/service/series/0558/bibs/2470/24700200.htm. Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
New Resolution-Based QBF Calculi and Their Proof Complexity
Recommendations
Are Short Proofs Narrow? QBF Resolution Is Not So Simple
The ground-breaking paper “Short Proofs Are Narrow -- Resolution Made Simple” by Ben-Sasson and Wigderson (J. ACM 2001) introduces what is today arguably the main technique to obtain resolution lower bounds: to show a lower bound for the width of ...
Level-ordered Q-resolution and tree-like Q-resolution are incomparable
We show that Level-ordered Q-resolution and Tree-like Q-resolution, two restrictions of the Q-resolution system for proving false QBFs false, are incomparable. While the Exp + Res system is known to p-simulate Tree-like Q-resolution, we observe that it ...
A non-prenex, non-clausal QBF solver with game-state learning
SAT'10: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability TestingWe describe a DPLL-based solver for the problem of quantified boolean formulas (QBF) in non-prenex, non-CNF form. We make two contributions. First, we reformulate clause/cube learning, extending it to non-prenex instances. We call the resulting ...






Comments