Exponential separations using guarded extension variables

We study the complexity of proof systems augmenting resolution with inference rules that allow, given a formula $\Gamma$ in conjunctive normal form, deriving clauses that are not necessarily logically implied by $\Gamma$ but whose addition to $\Gamma$ preserves satisfiability. When the derived clauses are allowed to introduce variables not occurring in $\Gamma$, the systems we consider become equivalent to extended resolution. We are concerned with the versions of these systems without new variables. They are called BC${}^-$, RAT${}^-$, SBC${}^-$, and GER${}^-$, denoting respectively blocked clauses, resolution asymmetric tautologies, set-blocked clauses, and generalized extended resolution. Each of these systems formalizes some restricted version of the ability to make assumptions that hold "without loss of generality," which is commonly used informally to simplify or shorten proofs. Except for SBC${}^-$, these systems are known to be exponentially weaker than extended resolution. They are, however, all equivalent to it under a relaxed notion of simulation that allows the translation of the formula along with the proof when moving between proof systems. By taking advantage of this fact, we construct formulas that separate RAT${}^-$ from GER${}^-$ and vice versa. With the same strategy, we also separate SBC${}^-$ from RAT${}^-$. Additionally, we give polynomial-size SBC${}^-$ proofs of the pigeonhole principle, which separates SBC${}^-$ from GER${}^-$ by a previously known lower bound. These results also separate the three systems from BC${}^-$ since they all simulate it. We thus give an almost complete picture of their relative strengths

Exponential Separations Using Guarded Extension Variables

We study the complexity of proof systems augmenting resolution with inference rules that allow, given a formula ? in conjunctive normal form, deriving clauses that are not necessarily logically implied by ? but whose addition to ? preserves satisfiability. When the derived clauses are allowed to introduce variables not occurring in ?, the systems we consider become equivalent to extended resolution. We are concerned with the versions of these systems without new variables. They are called BC?, RAT?, SBC?, and GER?, denoting respectively blocked clauses, resolution asymmetric tautologies, set-blocked clauses, and generalized extended resolution. Each of these systems formalizes some restricted version of the ability to make assumptions that hold "without loss of generality," which is commonly used informally to simplify or shorten proofs. Except for SBC?, these systems are known to be exponentially weaker than extended resolution. They are, however, all equivalent to it under a relaxed notion of simulation that allows the translation of the formula along with the proof when moving between proof systems. By taking advantage of this fact, we construct formulas that separate RAT? from GER? and vice versa. With the same strategy, we also separate SBC? from RAT?. Additionally, we give polynomial-size SBC? proofs of the pigeonhole principle, which separates SBC? from GER? by a previously known lower bound. These results also separate the three systems from BC? since they all simulate it. We thus give an almost complete picture of their relative strengths

Generating Extended Resolution Proofs with a BDD-Based SAT Solver

In 2006, Biere, Jussila, and Sinz made the key observation that the underlying logic behind algorithms for constructing Reduced, Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) can be encoded as steps in a proof in the extended resolution logical framework. Through this, a BDD-based Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver can generate a checkable proof of unsatisfiability for a set of clauses. Such a proof indicates that the formula is truly unsatisfiable without requiring the user to trust the BDD package or the SAT solver built on top of it. We extend their work to enable arbitrary existential quantification of the formula variables, a critical capability for BDD-based SAT solvers. We demonstrate the utility of this approach by applying a prototype solver to several problems that are very challenging for search-based SAT solvers, obtaining polynomially sized proofs on benchmarks for parity formulas, as well as the Urquhart, mutilated chessboard, and pigeonhole problems.Comment: Extended version of paper published at TACAS 202

Effective Auxiliary Variables via Structured Reencoding

Extended resolution shows that auxiliary variables are very powerful in theory. However, attempts to exploit this potential in practice have had limited success. One reasonably effective method in this regard is bounded variable addition (BVA), which automatically reencodes formulas by introducing new variables and eliminating clauses, often significantly reducing formula size. We find motivating examples suggesting that the performance improvement caused by BVA stems not only from this size reduction but also from the introduction of effective auxiliary variables. Analyzing specific packing-coloring instances, we discover that BVA is fragile with respect to formula randomization, relying on variable order to break ties. With this understanding, we augment BVA with a heuristic for breaking ties in a structured way. We evaluate our new preprocessing technique, Structured BVA (SBVA), on more than 29 000 formulas from previous SAT competitions and show that it is robust to randomization. In a simulated competition setting, our implementation outperforms BVA on both randomized and original formulas, and appears to be well-suited for certain families of formulas

Proceedings of SAT Competition 2016 : Solver and Benchmark Descriptions

Peer reviewe