On OBDD-Based Algorithms and Proof Systems That Dynamically Change Order of Variables

In 2004 Atserias, Kolaitis and Vardi proposed OBDD-based propositional proof systems that prove unsatisfiability of a CNF formula by deduction of identically false OBDD from OBDDs representing clauses of the initial formula. All OBDDs in such proofs have the same order of variables. We initiate the study of OBDD based proof systems that additionally contain a rule that allows to change the order in OBDDs. At first we consider a proof system OBDD(and, reordering) that uses the conjunction (join) rule and the rule that allows to change the order. We exponentially separate this proof system from OBDD(and)-proof system that uses only the conjunction rule. We prove two exponential lower bounds on the size of OBDD(and, reordering)-refutations of Tseitin formulas and the pigeonhole principle. The first lower bound was previously unknown even for OBDD(and)-proofs and the second one extends the result of Tveretina et al. from OBDD(and) to OBDD(and, reordering). In 2004 Pan and Vardi proposed an approach to the propositional satisfiability problem based on OBDDs and symbolic quantifier elimination (we denote algorithms based on this approach as OBDD(and, exists)-algorithms. We notice that there exists an OBDD(and, exists)-algorithm that solves satisfiable and unsatisfiable Tseitin formulas in polynomial time. In contrast, we show that there exist formulas representing systems of linear equations over F_2 that are hard for OBDD(and, exists, reordering)-algorithms. Our hard instances are satisfiable formulas representing systems of linear equations over F_2 that correspond to some checksum matrices of error correcting codes

On the Error Resilience of Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams

Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams (OBDDs) are a data structure that is used in an increasing number of fields of Computer Science (e.g., logic synthesis, program verification, data mining, bioinformatics, and data protection) for representing and manipulating discrete structures and Boolean functions. The purpose of this paper is to study the error resilience of OBDDs and to design a resilient version of this data structure, i.e., a self-repairing OBDD. In particular, we describe some strategies that make reduced ordered OBDDs resilient to errors in the indexes, that are associated to the input variables, or in the pointers (i.e., OBDD edges) of the nodes. These strategies exploit the inherent redundancy of the data structure, as well as the redundancy introduced by its efficient implementations. The solutions we propose allow the exact restoring of the original OBDD and are suitable to be applied to classical software packages for the manipulation of OBDDs currently in use. Another result of the paper is the definition of a new canonical OBDD model, called {\em Index-resilient Reduced OBDD}, which guarantees that a node with a faulty index has a reconstruction cost $O(k)$, where $k$ is the number of nodes with corrupted index

The Language of Search

This paper is concerned with a class of algorithms that perform exhaustive search on propositional knowledge bases. We show that each of these algorithms defines and generates a propositional language. Specifically, we show that the trace of a search can be interpreted as a combinational circuit, and a search algorithm then defines a propositional language consisting of circuits that are generated across all possible executions of the algorithm. In particular, we show that several versions of exhaustive DPLL search correspond to such well-known languages as FBDD, OBDD, and a precisely-defined subset of d-DNNF. By thus mapping search algorithms to propositional languages, we provide a uniform and practical framework in which successful search techniques can be harnessed for compilation of knowledge into various languages of interest, and a new methodology whereby the power and limitations of search algorithms can be understood by looking up the tractability and succinctness of the corresponding propositional languages

Separating Incremental and Non-Incremental Bottom-Up Compilation

The aim of a compiler is, given a function represented in some language, to generate an equivalent representation in a target language L. In bottom-up (BU) compilation of functions given as CNF formulas, constructing the new representation requires compiling several subformulas in L. The compiler starts by compiling the clauses in L and iteratively constructs representations for new subformulas using an "Apply" operator that performs conjunction in L, until all clauses are combined into one representation. In principle, BU compilation can generate representations for any subformulas and conjoin them in any way. But an attractive strategy from a practical point of view is to augment one main representation - which we call the core - by conjoining to it the clauses one at a time. We refer to this strategy as incremental BU compilation. We prove that, for known relevant languages L for BU compilation, there is a class of CNF formulas that admit BU compilations to L that generate only polynomial-size intermediate representations, while their incremental BU compilations all generate an exponential-size core

OBDD(Join) Proofs Cannot Be Balanced

We study OBDD-based propositional proof systems introduced in 2004 by Atserias, Kolaitis, and Vardi that prove the unsatisfiability of a CNF formula by deduction of an identically false OBDD from OBDDs representing clauses of the initial formula. We consider a proof system OBDD(?) that uses only the conjunction (join) rule and a proof system OBDD(?, reordering) (introduced in 2017 by Itsykson, Knop, Romashchenko, and Sokolov) that uses the conjunction (join) rule and the rule that allows changing the order of variables in OBDD. We study whether these systems can be balanced i.e. every refutation of size S can be reassembled into a refutation of depth O(log S) with at most a polynomial-size increase. We construct a family of unsatisfiable CNF formulas F_n such that F_n has a polynomial-size tree-like OBDD(?) refutation of depth poly(n) and for arbitrary OBDD(?, reordering) refutation ? of F_n for every ? ? (0,1) the following trade-off holds: either the size of ? is 2^?(n^?) or the depth of ? is ?(n^{1-?}). As a corollary of the trade-offs, we get that OBDD(?) and OBDD(?, reordering) proofs cannot be balanced

ASTRA 3.0: Logical and Probabilistic Analysis Methods

This report contains the description of the main methods, implemented in ASTRA 3.0, to analyse coherent and non-coherent fault trees. ASTRA 3.0 is fully based on the Binary Decision Diagrams (BDD) approach. In case of non-coherent fault trees ASTRA 3.0 dynamically assigns to each node of the graph a label that identifies the type of the associated variable in order to drive the application of the most suitable analysis algorithms. The resulting BDD is referred to as Labelled BDD (LBDD). Exact values of the unavailability, expected number of failure and repair are calculated; the unreliability upper bound is automatically determined under given conditions. Five different importance measures of basic events are also provided. From the LBDD a ZBDD embedding all the MCS is obtained from which a subset of Significant Minimal Cut Sets (SMCS) is determined through the application of the cut-off techniques. With very complex trees it may happen that the working memory is not sufficient to store the large LBDD structure. In these cases ASTRA 3.0 completes the analysis by constructing a Reduced ZBDD embedding the SMCS - using cut-off techniques - thus by-passing the construction of the LBDD. The report also contains few tutorials on the usefulness of non-coherent fault trees, on the BDD approach, and on the determination of failure and repair frequencies.JRC.DG.G.7-Traceability and vulnerability assessmen

Reordering Rule Makes OBDD Proof Systems Stronger

Atserias, Kolaitis, and Vardi showed that the proof system of Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams with conjunction and weakening, OBDD(^, weakening), simulates CP^* (Cutting Planes with unary coefficients). We show that OBDD(^, weakening) can give exponentially shorter proofs than dag-like cutting planes. This is proved by showing that the Clique-Coloring tautologies have polynomial size proofs in the OBDD(^, weakening) system. The reordering rule allows changing the variable order for OBDDs. We show that OBDD(^, weakening, reordering) is strictly stronger than OBDD(^, weakening). This is proved using the Clique-Coloring tautologies, and by transforming tautologies using coded permutations and orification. We also give CNF formulas which have polynomial size OBDD(^) proofs but require superpolynomial (actually, quasipolynomial size) resolution proofs, and thus we partially resolve an open question proposed by Groote and Zantema. Applying dag-like and tree-like lifting techniques to the mentioned results, we completely analyze which of the systems among CP^*, OBDD(^), OBDD(^, reordering), OBDD(^, weakening) and OBDD(^, weakening, reordering) polynomially simulate each other. For dag-like proof systems, some of our separations are quasipolynomial and some are exponential; for tree-like systems, all of our separations are exponential

Satisfiable Tseitin Formulas Are Hard for Nondeterministic Read-Once Branching Programs

We consider satisfiable Tseitin formulas TS_{G,c} based on d-regular expanders G with the absolute value of the second largest eigenvalue less than d/3. We prove that any nondeterministic read-once branching program (1-NBP) representing TS_{G,c} has size 2^{Omega(n)}, where n is the number of vertices in G. It extends the recent result by Itsykson at el. [STACS 2017] from OBDD to 1-NBP. On the other hand it is easy to see that TS_{G,c} can be represented as a read-2 branching program (2-BP) of size O(n), as the negation of a nondeterministic read-once branching program (1-coNBP) of size O(n) and as a CNF formula of size O(n). Thus TS_{G,c} gives the best possible separations (up to a constant in the exponent) between 1-NBP and 2-BP, 1-NBP and 1-coNBP and between 1-NBP and CNF

Proof Complexity of Systems of (Non-Deterministic) Decision Trees and Branching Programs

This paper studies propositional proof systems in which lines are sequents of decision trees or branching programs, deterministic or non-deterministic. Decision trees (DTs) are represented by a natural term syntax, inducing the system LDT, and non-determinism is modelled by including disjunction, ?, as primitive (system LNDT). Branching programs generalise DTs to dag-like structures and are duly handled by extension variables in our setting, as is common in proof complexity (systems eLDT and eLNDT). Deterministic and non-deterministic branching programs are natural nonuniform analogues of log-space (L) and nondeterministic log-space (NL), respectively. Thus eLDT and eLNDT serve as natural systems of reasoning corresponding to L and NL, respectively. The main results of the paper are simulation and non-simulation results for tree-like and dag-like proofs in LDT, LNDT, eLDT and eLNDT. We also compare them with Frege systems, constant-depth Frege systems and extended Frege systems