Understanding the Relative Strength of QBF CDCL Solvers and QBF Resolution

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

Reasons for Hardness in QBF Proof Complexity

Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF) extend the canonical NP-complete satisfiability problem by including Boolean quantifiers. Determining the truth of a QBF is PSPACE-complete; this is expected to be a harder problem than satisfiability, and hence QBF solving has much wider applications in practice. QBF proof complexity forms the theoretical basis for understanding QBF solving, as well as providing insights into more general complexity theory, but is less well understood than propositional proof complexity. We begin this thesis by looking at the reasons underlying QBF hardness, and in particular when the hardness is propositional in nature, rather than arising due to the quantifiers. We introduce relaxing QU-Res, a previous model for identifying such propositional hardness, and construct an example where relaxing QU-Res is unsuccessful in this regard. We then provide a new model for identifying such hardness which we prove captures this concept. Now equipped with a means of identifying ‘genuine’ QBF hardness, we prove a new lower bound technique for tree-like QBF proof systems. Lower bounds using this technique allows us to show a new separation between tree-like and dag-like systems. We give a characterisation of lower bounds for a large class of tree-like proof systems, in which such lower bounds play a prominent role. Further to the tree-like bound, we provide a new lower bound technique for QBF proof systems in general. This technique has some similarities to the above technique for tree-like systems, but requires some refinement to provide bounds for dag-like systems. We give applications of this new technique by proving lower bounds across several systems. The first such lower bounds are for a very simple family of QBFs. We then provide a construction to combine false QBFs to give formulas for which we can show lower bounds in this way, allowing the generation of the first random QBF proof complexity lower bounds