An official website of the United States government
We introduce proof systems for propositional logic that admit short proofs of hard formulas as well as the succinct expression of most techniques used by modern SAT solvers. Our proof systems allow the derivation of clauses that are not necessarily implied, but which are redundant in the sense that their addition preserves satisfiability. To guarantee that these added clauses are redundant, we consider various efficiently decidable redundancy criteria which we obtain by first characterizing clause redundancy in terms of a semantic implication relationship and then restricting this relationship so that it becomes decidable in polynomial time. As the restricted implication relation is based on unit propagation---a core technique of SAT solvers---it allows efficient proof checking too. The resulting proof systems are surprisingly strong, even without the introduction of new variables---a key feature of short proofs presented in the proof-complexity literature. We demonstrate the strength of our proof systems on the famous pigeon hole formulas by providing short clausal proofs without new variables.
more »
« less
Simulating Strong Practical Proof Systems with Extended Resolution
Proof systems for propositional logic provide the basis for decision procedures that determine the satisfiability status of logical formulas. While the well-known proof system of extended resolution—introduced by Tseitin in the sixties—allows for the compact representation of proofs, modern SAT solvers (i.e., tools for deciding propositional logic) are based on different proof systems that capture practical solving techniques in an elegant way. The most popular of these proof systems is likely DRAT, which is considered the de-facto standard in SAT solving. Moreover, just recently, the proof system DPR has been proposed as a generalization of DRAT that allows for short proofs without the need of new variables. Since every extended-resolution proof can be regarded as a DRAT proof and since every DRAT proof is also a DPR proof, it was clear that both DRAT and DPR generalize extended resolution. In this paper, we show that—from the viewpoint of proof complexity—these two systems are no stronger than extended resolution. We do so by showing that (1) extended resolution polynomially simulates DRAT and (2) DRAT polynomially simulates DPR. We implemented our simulations as proof-transformation tools and evaluated them to observe their behavior in practice. Finally, as a side note, we show how Kullmann’s proof system based on blocked clauses (another generalization of extended resolution) is related to the other systems.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2015445
- PAR ID:
- 10188349
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Automated Reasoning
- ISSN:
- 0168-7433
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Mutilated chessboard problems have been called a “tough nut to crack” for automated reasoning. They are, for instance, hard for resolution, resulting in exponential runtime of current SAT solvers. Although there exists a well-known short argument for solving mutilated chessboard problems, this argument is based on an abstraction that is challenging to discover by automated-reasoning techniques. In this paper, we present another short argument that is much easier to compute and that can be expressed within the recent (clausal) PR proof system for propositional logic. We construct short clausal proofs of mutilated chessboard problems using this new argument and validate them using a formally-verified proof checker.more » « less
-
Groote, J. F.; Larsen, K. G. (Ed.)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. Such proofs indicate 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 obtain polynomially sized proofs on benchmarks for the mutilated chessboard and pigeonhole problems—ones that are very challenging for search-based SAT solvers.more » « less
-
Beyersdorff, Olaf; Kanté, Mamadou Moustapha; Kupferman, Orna; Lokshtanov, Daniel (Ed.)We study propositional proof systems with inference rules that formalize restricted versions of the ability to make assumptions that hold without loss of generality, commonly used informally to shorten proofs. Each system we study is built on resolution. They are called BC⁻, RAT⁻, SBC⁻, and GER⁻, denoting respectively blocked clauses, resolution asymmetric tautologies, set-blocked clauses, and generalized extended resolution - all without new variables. They may be viewed as weak versions of extended resolution (ER) since they are defined by first generalizing the extension rule and then taking away the ability to introduce new variables. Except for SBC⁻, they are known to be strictly between resolution and extended resolution. Several separations between these systems were proved earlier by exploiting the fact that they effectively simulate ER. We answer the questions left open: We prove exponential lower bounds for SBC⁻ proofs of a binary encoding of the pigeonhole principle, which separates ER from SBC⁻. Using this new separation, we prove that both RAT⁻ and GER⁻ are exponentially separated from SBC⁻. This completes the picture of their relative strengths.more » « less
-
Bertot, Yves; Kutsia, Temur; Norrish, Michael (Ed.)A recent breakthrough in computer-assisted mathematics showed that every set of 30 points in the plane in general position (i.e., no three points on a common line) contains an empty convex hexagon. Heule and Scheucher solved this problem with a combination of geometric insights and automated reasoning techniques by constructing CNF formulas ϕ_n, with O(n⁴) clauses, such that if ϕ_n is unsatisfiable then every set of n points in general position must contain an empty convex hexagon. An unsatisfiability proof for n = 30 was then found with a SAT solver using 17 300 CPU hours of parallel computation. In this paper, we formalize and verify this result in the Lean theorem prover. Our formalization covers ideas in discrete computational geometry and SAT encoding techniques by introducing a framework that connects geometric objects to propositional assignments. We see this as a key step towards the formal verification of other SAT-based results in geometry, since the abstractions we use have been successfully applied to similar problems. Overall, we hope that our work sets a new standard for the verification of geometry problems relying on extensive computation, and that it increases the trust the mathematical community places in computer-assisted proofs.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-020-09554-z
