854 research outputs found

    Unsatisfiable Linear CNF Formulas Are Large and Complex

    Get PDF
    We call a CNF formula linear if any two clauses have at most one variable in common. We show that there exist unsatisfiable linear k-CNF formulas with at most 4k^2 4^k clauses, and on the other hand, any linear k-CNF formula with at most 4^k/(8e^2k^2) clauses is satisfiable. The upper bound uses probabilistic means, and we have no explicit construction coming even close to it. One reason for this is that unsatisfiable linear formulas exhibit a more complex structure than general (non-linear) formulas: First, any treelike resolution refutation of any unsatisfiable linear k-CNF formula has size at least 2^(2^(k/2-1))$. This implies that small unsatisfiable linear k-CNF formulas are hard instances for Davis-Putnam style splitting algorithms. Second, if we require that the formula F have a strict resolution tree, i.e. every clause of F is used only once in the resolution tree, then we need at least a^a^...^a clauses, where a is approximately 2 and the height of this tower is roughly k.Comment: 12 pages plus a two-page appendix; corrected an inconsistency between title of the paper and title of the arxiv submissio

    Understanding Space in Proof Complexity: Separations and Trade-offs via Substitutions

    Full text link
    For current state-of-the-art DPLL SAT-solvers the two main bottlenecks are the amounts of time and memory used. In proof complexity, these resources correspond to the length and space of resolution proofs. There has been a long line of research investigating these proof complexity measures, but while strong results have been established for length, our understanding of space and how it relates to length has remained quite poor. In particular, the question whether resolution proofs can be optimized for length and space simultaneously, or whether there are trade-offs between these two measures, has remained essentially open. In this paper, we remedy this situation by proving a host of length-space trade-off results for resolution. Our collection of trade-offs cover almost the whole range of values for the space complexity of formulas, and most of the trade-offs are superpolynomial or even exponential and essentially tight. Using similar techniques, we show that these trade-offs in fact extend to the exponentially stronger k-DNF resolution proof systems, which operate with formulas in disjunctive normal form with terms of bounded arity k. We also answer the open question whether the k-DNF resolution systems form a strict hierarchy with respect to space in the affirmative. Our key technical contribution is the following, somewhat surprising, theorem: Any CNF formula F can be transformed by simple variable substitution into a new formula F' such that if F has the right properties, F' can be proven in essentially the same length as F, whereas on the other hand the minimal number of lines one needs to keep in memory simultaneously in any proof of F' is lower-bounded by the minimal number of variables needed simultaneously in any proof of F. Applying this theorem to so-called pebbling formulas defined in terms of pebble games on directed acyclic graphs, we obtain our results.Comment: This paper is a merged and updated version of the two ECCC technical reports TR09-034 and TR09-047, and it hence subsumes these two report

    Complexity of Propositional Proofs under a Promise

    Get PDF
    We study -- within the framework of propositional proof complexity -- the problem of certifying unsatisfiability of CNF formulas under the promise that any satisfiable formula has many satisfying assignments, where ``many'' stands for an explicitly specified function \Lam in the number of variables nn. To this end, we develop propositional proof systems under different measures of promises (that is, different \Lam) as extensions of resolution. This is done by augmenting resolution with axioms that, roughly, can eliminate sets of truth assignments defined by Boolean circuits. We then investigate the complexity of such systems, obtaining an exponential separation in the average-case between resolution under different size promises: 1. Resolution has polynomial-size refutations for all unsatisfiable 3CNF formulas when the promise is \eps\cd2^n, for any constant 0<\eps<1. 2. There are no sub-exponential size resolution refutations for random 3CNF formulas, when the promise is 2δn2^{\delta n} (and the number of clauses is o(n3/2)o(n^{3/2})), for any constant 0<δ<10<\delta<1.Comment: 32 pages; a preliminary version appeared in the Proceedings of ICALP'0

    A Generalized Method for Proving Polynomial Calculus Degree Lower Bounds

    Full text link
    We study the problem of obtaining lower bounds for polynomial calculus (PC) and polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) on proof degree, and hence by [Impagliazzo et al. '99] also on proof size. [Alekhnovich and Razborov '03] established that if the clause-variable incidence graph of a CNF formula F is a good enough expander, then proving that F is unsatisfiable requires high PC/PCR degree. We further develop the techniques in [AR03] to show that if one can "cluster" clauses and variables in a way that "respects the structure" of the formula in a certain sense, then it is sufficient that the incidence graph of this clustered version is an expander. As a corollary of this, we prove that the functional pigeonhole principle (FPHP) formulas require high PC/PCR degree when restricted to constant-degree expander graphs. This answers an open question in [Razborov '02], and also implies that the standard CNF encoding of the FPHP formulas require exponential proof size in polynomial calculus resolution. Thus, while Onto-FPHP formulas are easy for polynomial calculus, as shown in [Riis '93], both FPHP and Onto-PHP formulas are hard even when restricted to bounded-degree expanders.Comment: Full-length version of paper to appear in Proceedings of the 30th Annual Computational Complexity Conference (CCC '15), June 201

    SAT-Based Synthesis Methods for Safety Specs

    Full text link
    Automatic synthesis of hardware components from declarative specifications is an ambitious endeavor in computer aided design. Existing synthesis algorithms are often implemented with Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs), inheriting their scalability limitations. Instead of BDDs, we propose several new methods to synthesize finite-state systems from safety specifications using decision procedures for the satisfiability of quantified and unquantified Boolean formulas (SAT-, QBF- and EPR-solvers). The presented approaches are based on computational learning, templates, or reduction to first-order logic. We also present an efficient parallelization, and optimizations to utilize reachability information and incremental solving. Finally, we compare all methods in an extensive case study. Our new methods outperform BDDs and other existing work on some classes of benchmarks, and our parallelization achieves a super-linear speedup. This is an extended version of [5], featuring an additional appendix.Comment: Extended version of a paper at VMCAI'1

    Incremental Cardinality Constraints for MaxSAT

    Full text link
    Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) is an optimization variant of the Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem. In general, MaxSAT algorithms perform a succession of SAT solver calls to reach an optimum solution making extensive use of cardinality constraints. Many of these algorithms are non-incremental in nature, i.e. at each iteration the formula is rebuilt and no knowledge is reused from one iteration to another. In this paper, we exploit the knowledge acquired across iterations using novel schemes to use cardinality constraints in an incremental fashion. We integrate these schemes with several MaxSAT algorithms. Our experimental results show a significant performance boost for these algo- rithms as compared to their non-incremental counterparts. These results suggest that incremental cardinality constraints could be beneficial for other constraint solving domains.Comment: 18 pages, 4 figures, 1 table. Final version published in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP) 201
    corecore