Search

QBF solvers implementing the QCDCL paradigm are powerful algorithms that successfully tackle many computationally complex applications. However, our theoretical understanding of the strength and limitations of these QCDCL solvers is very limited. In this paper we suggest to formally model QCDCL solvers as proof systems. We define different policies that can be used for decision heuristics and unit propagation and give rise to a number of sound and complete QBF proof systems (and hence new QCDCL algorithms). With respect to the standard policies used in practical QCDCL solving, we show that the corresponding QCDCL proof system is incomparable (via exponential separations) to Q-resolution, the classical QBF resolution system used in the literature. This is in stark contrast to the propositional setting where CDCL and resolution are known to be p-equivalent. This raises the question what formulas are hard for standard QCDCL, since Q-resolution lower bounds do not necessarily apply to QCDCL as we show here. In answer to this question we prove several lower bounds for QCDCL, including exponential lower bounds for a large class of random QBFs. We also introduce a strengthening of the decision heuristic used in classical QCDCL, which does not necessarily decide variables in order of the prefix, but still allows to learn asserting clauses. We show that with this decision policy, QCDCL can be exponentially faster on some formulas. We further exhibit a QCDCL proof system that is p-equivalent to Q-resolution. In comparison to classical QCDCL, this new QCDCL version adapts both decision and unit propagation policies.

We prove the first genuine QBF proof size lower bounds for the proof system Merge Resolution (MRes [Olaf Beyersdorff et al., 2020]), a refutational proof system for prenex quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) with a CNF matrix. Unlike most QBF resolution systems in the literature, proofs in MRes consist of resolution steps together with information on countermodels, which are syntactically stored in the proofs as merge maps. As demonstrated in [Olaf Beyersdorff et al., 2020], this makes MRes quite powerful: it has strategy extraction by design and allows short proofs for formulas which are hard for classical QBF resolution systems. Here we show the first genuine QBF exponential lower bounds for MRes, thereby uncovering limitations of MRes. Technically, the results are either transferred from bounds from circuit complexity (for restricted versions of MRes) or directly obtained by combinatorial arguments (for full MRes). Our results imply that the MRes approach is largely orthogonal to other QBF resolution models such as the QCDCL resolution systems QRes and QURes and the expansion systems $\forall$Exp+Res and IR.

As a natural extension of the SAT problem, an array of proof systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) have been proposed, many of which extend a propositional proof system to handle universal quantification. By formalising the construction of the QBF proof system obtained from a propositional proof system by adding universal reduction (Beyersdorff, Bonacina & Chew, ITCS `16), we present a new technique for proving proof-size lower bounds in these systems. The technique relies only on two semantic measures: the cost of a QBF, and the capacity of a proof. By examining the capacity of proofs in several QBF systems, we are able to use the technique to obtain lower bounds based on cost alone. As applications of the technique, we first prove exponential lower bounds for a new family of simple QBFs representing equality. The main application is in proving exponential lower bounds with high probability for a class of randomly generated QBFs, the first `genuine' lower bounds of this kind, which apply to the QBF analogues of resolution, Cutting Planes, and Polynomial Calculus. Finally, we employ the technique to give a simple proof of hardness for the prominent formulas of Kleine B\"uning, Karpinski and Fl\"ogel.

In sharp contrast to classical proof complexity we are currently short of lower bound techniques for QBF proof systems. In this paper we establish the feasible interpolation technique for all resolution-based QBF systems, whether modelling CDCL or expansion-based solving. This both provides the first general lower bound method for QBF proof systems as well as largely extends the scope of classical feasible interpolation. We apply our technique to obtain new exponential lower bounds to all resolution-based QBF systems for a new class of QBF formulas based on the clique problem. Finally, we show how feasible interpolation relates to the recently established lower bound method based on strategy extraction.

We examine the existing Resolution systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and answer the question which of these calculi can be lifted to the more powerful Dependency QBFs (DQBF). An interesting picture emerges: While for QBF we have the strict chain of proof systems Q-Resolution < IR-calc < IRM-calc, the situation is quite different in DQBF. Q-Resolution and likewise universal Resolution are too weak: they are not complete. IR-calc has the right strength: it is sound and complete. IRM-calc is too strong: it is not sound any more, and the same applies to long-distance Resolution. Conceptually, we use the relation of DQBF to EPR and explain our new DQBF calculus based on IR-calc as a subsystem of FO-Resolution., Comment: SAT 2016

In this paper we compare two proof systems for minimal entailment: a tableau system OTAB and a sequent calculus MLK, both developed by Olivetti (1992). Our main result shows that OTAB-proofs can be efficiently translated into MLK-proofs, i.e; MLK p-simulates OTAB. The simulation is technically very involved and answers an open question posed by Olivetti (1992) on the relation between the two calculi. We also show that the two systems are exponentially separated, i.e; there are formulas which have polynomial size MLK-proofs, but require exponential-size OTAB- proofs., Comment: 9 pages, 3 figures, this paper appears in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014)

Various "hardness" measures have been studied for resolution, providing theoretical insight into the proof complexity of resolution and its fragments, as well as explanations for the hardness of instances in SAT solving. In this report we aim at a unified view of a number of hardness measures, including different measures of width, space and size of resolution proofs. We also extend these measures to all clause-sets (possibly satisfiable)., Comment: 43 pages, preliminary version (yet the application part is only sketched, with proofs missing)

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations---restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004). For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that, in cases where the combined complexity is of relevance, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism cannot be expected to result in any significant speedup. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL+, and ECTL+.

The question whether a set of formulae G implies a formula f is fundamental. The present paper studies the complexity of the above implication problem for propositional formulae that are built from a systematically restricted set of Boolean connectives. We give a complete complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of Post's lattice and show that the implication problem is efficentily solvable only if the connectives are definable using the constants {false,true} and only one of {and,or,xor}. The problem remains coNP-complete in all other cases. We also consider the restriction of G to singletons.

Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default logic as $\SigmaPtwo$-complete, and the complexity of the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem as SigmaP2-complete, resp. PiP2-complete. Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i.e., semi-normal default rules. Selman made in 1992 a similar approach with disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this paper we systematically restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of Post's lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default logic. We show that the complexity is a hexachotomy (SigmaP2-, DeltaP2-, NP-, P-, NL-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, while for the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem we obtain similar classifications without trivial cases., Comment: Corrected version