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

Proof Complexity for Quantified Boolean Formulas

Quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) extend the propositional satisfiability problem by allowing variables to be universally as well as existentially quantified. Deciding whether a QBF is true or false is PSPACE-complete and a wide range of mathematical and industrial problems can be expressed as QBFs. QBF proof complexity is the theoretical analysis of algorithmic techniques for solving QBFs. We make a detailed comparison of the proof systems Q-Res, QU-Res, and ∀Exp + Res which extend propositional Resolution with different rules for reasoning about universally quantified variables. We give new simulation and separation results between these proof systems under two natural restrictions, when the proofs are tree-like, and when the QBFs have bounded quantifier complexity. We consider a strong QBF proof system, QRAT, proposed as a universal proof checking format. We show that, unless P = PSPACE, QRAT does not admit strategy extraction. This is proved by constructing a family of QBFs that have short QRAT proofs but whose strategies are hard to compute in general. We also explore why strategy extraction fails for QRAT, including presenting a restricted version of QRAT which does admit strategy extraction. We study two results from propositional proof complexity and their analogues in QBF proof complexity, showing in both cases how the additional complexity of QBF solving compared to refuting propositional formulas causes these results to fail in the QBF setting

Efficient local search for Pseudo Boolean Optimization

Algorithms and the Foundations of Software technolog