Abstract
We aim to understand inherent reasons for lower bounds for QBF proof systems and revisit and compare two previous approaches in this direction. The first of these relates size lower bounds for strong QBF Frege systems to circuit lower bounds via strategy extraction (Beyersdorff and Pich, LICS’16). Here, we show a refined version of strategy extraction and thereby for any QBF proof system obtain a trichotomy for hardness: (1) via circuit lower bounds, (2) via propositional Resolution lower bounds, or (3) “genuine” QBF lower bounds. The second approach tries to explain QBF lower bounds through quantifier alternations in a system called relaxing QU-Res (Chen, ACM TOCT 2017). We prove a strong lower bound for relaxing QU-Res, which at the same time exhibits significant shortcomings of that model. Prompted by this, we introduce a hierarchy of new systems that improve Chen’s model and prove a strict separation for the complexity of proofs in this hierarchy. We show that lower bounds in our new model correspond to the trichotomy obtained via strategy extraction.
- Valeriy Balabanov, Magdalena Widl, and Jie-Hong R. Jiang. 2014. QBF resolution systems and their proof complexities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’14). 154--169.Google Scholar
- Paul Beame, Richard M. Karp, Toniann Pitassi, and Michael E. Saks. 2002. The efficiency of resolution and Davis--Putnam procedures. SIAM J. Comput. 31, 4 (2002), 1048--1075.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Paul Beame, Henry A. Kautz, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2004. Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 22 (2004), 319--351.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marco Benedetti and Hratch Mangassarian. 2008. QBF-based formal verification: Experience and perspectives. J. Sat. Boolean Model. Comput. 5, 1-4 (2008), 133--191.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Joshua Blinkhorn. 2018. Genuine lower bounds for QBF expansion. In Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’18). 12:1--12:15.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Joshua Blinkhorn, and Luke Hinde. 2019a. Size, cost, and capacity: A semantic technique for hard random QBFs. Logic. Methods Comput. Sci. 15, 1 (2019).Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Ilario Bonacina, and Leroy Chew. 2016. Lower bounds: From circuits to QBF proof systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’16). 249--260.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Judith Clymo, and Meena Mahajan. 2019b. Short proofs in QBF expansion. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’19).Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikoláš Janota. 2014. On unification of QBF resolution-based calculi. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’14). 81--93.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikoláš Janota. 2015. Proof complexity of resolution-based QBF calculi. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’15). LIPIcs, 76--89.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Meena Mahajan, and Anil Shukla. 2017a. Feasible interpolation for QBF resolution calculi. Logic. Methods Comput. Sci. 13 (2017). Issue 2.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Meena Mahajan, and Anil Shukla. 2018. Understanding cutting planes for QBFs. Info. Comput. 262 (2018), 141--161.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Luke Hinde. 2019. Characterising tree-like frege proofs for QBF. Info. Comput. 268 (2019).Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Luke Hinde, and Ján Pich. 2017b. Reasons for hardness in QBF proof systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS’17).Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Johannes Köbler, and Sebastian Müller. 2011. Proof systems that take advice. Info. Comput. 209, 3 (2011), 320--332.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Ján Pich. 2016. Understanding gentzen and frege systems for QBF. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’16). 146--155.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Blake. 1937. Canonical Expressions in Boolean Algebra. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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. Trans. Comput. Theory 9, 3 (2017), 15:1--15:20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3087534Google Scholar
- Stephen A. Cook and Tsuyoshi Morioka. 2005. Quantified propositional calculus and a second-order theory for NC1. Arch. Math. Log. 44, 6 (2005), 711--749.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Stephen A. Cook and Phuong Nguyen. 2010. Logical Foundations of Proof Complexity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Stephen A. Cook and Robert A. Reckhow. 1979. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symbol. Log. 44, 1 (1979), 36--50.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Martin Davis and Hilary Putnam. 1960. A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7 (1960), 210--215.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Uwe Egly. 2012. On sequent systems and resolution for QBFs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’12). 100--113.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Uwe Egly. 2016. On stronger calculi for QBFs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’16). 419--434.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-016-9501-2Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Merrick L. Furst, James B. Saxe, and Michael Sipser. 1984. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Syst. Theory 17, 1 (1984), 13--27.Google Scholar
- Enrico Giunchiglia, Paolo Marin, and Massimo Narizzano. 2009. Reasoning with quantified Boolean formulas. In Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press, 761--780.Google Scholar
- Armin Haken. 1985. The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39 (1985), 297--308.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Johan Håstad. 1989. Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In Randomness and Computation, Advances in Computing Reasearch, Vol 5, S. Micali (Ed.). JAI Press, 143--170.Google Scholar
- Mikolás Janota, William Klieber, Joao Marques-Silva, and Edmund M. Clarke. 2016. Solving QBF with counterexample guided refinement. J. Artific. Intell. 234 (2016), 1--25.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Mikolás Janota and Joao Marques-Silva. 2015. Expansion-based QBF solving versus Q-resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 577 (2015), 25--42.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Emil Jerábek. 2004. Dual weak pigeonhole principle, Boolean complexity, and derandomization. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 129, 1–3 (2004), 1--37.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Benjamin Kiesl, Marijn J. H. Heule, and Martina Seidl. 2017. A little blocked literal goes a long way. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’17). 281--297.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Hans Kleine Büning, Marek Karpinski, and Andreas Flögel. 1995. Resolution for quantified Boolean formulas. Info. Comput. 117, 1 (1995), 12--18.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jan Krajícek, Pavel Pudlák, and Alan R. Woods. 1995. An exponential lower bound to the size of bounded depth frege proofs of the pigeonhole principle. Random Struct. Algor. 7, 1 (1995), 15--40.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jan Krajíček. 1995. Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic, and Complexity Theory. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 60. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jan Krajíček and Pavel Pudlák. 1990. Quantified propositional calculi and fragments of bounded arithmetic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 36 (1990), 29--46.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Florian Lonsing and Uwe Egly. 2018a. Evaluating QBF solvers: Quantifier alternations matter. In Proceedings of the Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’18). 276--294.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Florian Lonsing and Uwe Egly. 2018b. QRAT+: Generalizing QRAT by a more powerful QBF redundancy property. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR’18). 161--177.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Florian Lonsing, Uwe Egly, and Martina Seidl. 2016. Q-resolution with generalized axioms. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’16). 435--452.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Tomás Peitl, Friedrich Slivovsky, and Stefan Szeider. 2016. Long distance q-resolution with dependency schemes. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’16). 500--518.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Knot Pipatsrisawat and Adnan Darwiche. 2011. On the power of clause-learning SAT solvers as resolution engines. Artif. Intell. 175, 2 (2011), 512--525.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Toniann Pitassi, Paul Beame, and Russell Impagliazzo. 1993. Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle. Comput. Complex. 3 (1993), 97--140.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Jussi Rintanen. 2007. Asymptotically optimal encodings of conformant planning in QBF. In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1045--1050.Google Scholar
- John Alan Robinson. 1965. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM 12, 1 (1965), 23--41.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Horst Samulowitz and Fahiem Bacchus. 2005. Using SAT in QBF. In Proceedings of the Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’05). 578--592.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nathan Segerlind. 2007. The complexity of propositional proofs. Bull. Symbol. 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. 2012. Contributions to the theory of practical quantified Boolean formula solving. In Proceedings of the Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’12). 647--663.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lintao Zhang and Sharad Malik. 2002. Conflict driven learning in a quantified Boolean Satisfiability solver. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design (ICCAD’02). 442--449.Google Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Reasons for Hardness in QBF Proof Systems
Recommendations
Hardness Characterisations and Size-Width Lower Bounds for QBF Resolution
LICS '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer ScienceWe provide a tight characterisation of proof size in resolution for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) by circuit complexity. Such a characterisation was previously obtained for a hierarchy of QBF Frege systems (Beyersdorff & Pich, LICS 2016), but ...
The Efficiency of Resolution and Davis--Putnam Procedures
We consider several problems related to the use of resolution-based methods for determining whether a given boolean formula in conjunctive normal form is satisfiable. First, building on the work of Clegg, Edmonds, and Impagliazzo in [Proceedings of the ...






Comments