Olaf Beyersdorff
Ilario Bonacina
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
We define and investigate Frege systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). For these new proof systems, we develop a lower bound technique that directly lifts circuit lower bounds for a circuit class C to the QBF Frege system operating with lines from C. Such a direct transfer from circuit to proof complexity lower bounds has often been postulated for propositional systems but had not been formally established in such generality for any proof systems prior to this work.
This leads to strong lower bounds for restricted versions of QBF Frege, in particular an exponential lower bound for QBF Frege systems operating with AC0[p] circuits. In contrast, any non-trivial lower bound for propositional AC0[p]-Frege constitutes a major open problem.
Improving these lower bounds to unrestricted QBF Frege tightly corresponds to the major problems in circuit complexity and propositional proof complexity. In particular, proving a lower bound for QBF Frege systems operating with arbitrary P/poly circuits is equivalent to either showing a lower bound for P/poly or for propositional extended Frege (which operates with P/poly circuits).
We also compare our new QBF Frege systems to standard sequent calculi for QBF and establish a correspondence to intuitionistic bounded arithmetic.
- Miklós Ajtai. 1994. The complexity of the pigeonhole-principle. Combinatorica 14, 4 (1994), 417--433.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. 2009. Computational Complexity—A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Valeriy Balabanov and Jie-Hong R. Jiang. 2012. Unified QBF certification and its applications. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 41, 1 (Aug. 2012), 45--65.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Valeriy Balabanov, Magdalena Widl, and Jie-Hong R. Jiang. 2014. QBF resolution systems and their proof complexities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’14). 154--169.Google Scholar
- Paul Beame and Toniann Pitassi. 2001. Propositional proof complexity: Past, present, and future. In Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science: Entering the 21st Century, G. Paun, G. Rozenberg, and A. Salomaa (Eds.). World Scientific Publishing, 42--70.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eli Ben-Sasson and Avi Wigderson. 2001. Short proofs are narrow—Resolution made simple. J. ACM 48, 2 (2001), 149--169.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marco Benedetti and Hratch Mangassarian. 2008. QBF-based formal verification: Experience and perspectives. J. Satis. Boolean Model. Comput. 5, 1–4 (2008), 133--191.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff. 2009. On the correspondence between arithmetic theories and propositional proof systems -- A survey. Math. Log. Quart. 55, 2 (2009), 116--137.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Joshua Blinkhorn, and Luke Hinde. 2019. Size, cost, and capacity: A semantic technique for hard random QBFs. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 15, 1 (2019).Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Ilario Bonacina, and Leroy Chew. 2016a. Lower bounds: From circuits to QBF proof systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’16). ACM, 249--260.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikoláš Janota. 2014. On unification of QBF resolution-based calculi. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’14). Springer, 81--93.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikolás Janota. 2015. Proof complexity of resolution-based QBF calculi. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’15). 76--89.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, and Mikolás Janota. 2016b. Extension variables in QBF resolution. In Beyond NP, Papers from the 2016 AAAI Workshop. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Meena Mahajan, and Anil Shukla. 2017a. Feasible interpolation for QBF resolution calculi. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 13 (2017).Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Leroy Chew, Meena Mahajan, and Anil Shukla. 2018. Understanding cutting planes for QBFs. Inf. Comput. 262 (2018), 141--161.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff, Luke Hinde, and Ján Pich. 2017b. Reasons for hardness in QBF proof systems. In Proceedings of the 37th IARCS Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS’17). 14:1--14:15.Google Scholar
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Oliver Kullmann. 2014. Unified characterisations of resolution hardness measures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’14). Springer, 170--187.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olaf Beyersdorff and Ján Pich. 2016. Understanding Gentzen and Frege systems for QBF. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’16).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Archie Blake. 1937. Canonical Expressions in Boolean Algebra. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Maria Luisa Bonet, Carlos Domingo, Ricard Gavaldà, Alexis Maciel, and Toniann Pitassi. 2004. Non-automatizability of bounded-depth Frege proofs. Computat. Complex. 13, 1--2 (2004), 47--68.Google Scholar
- Maria Luisa Bonet, Toniann Pitassi, and Ran Raz. 2000. On interpolation and automatization for Frege systems. SIAM J. Comput. 29, 6 (2000), 1939--1967.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ravi B. Boppana and Michael Sipser. 1990. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science (Vol. A). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Chapter: The Complexity of Finite Functions, 757--804.Google Scholar
- Samuel R. Buss. 1986a. Bounded Arithmetic. Bibliopolis, Napoli.Google Scholar
- Samuel R. Buss. 1986b. The polynomial hierarchy and intuitionistic bounded arithmetic. In Proceedings of the Structure in Complexity Theory Conference. 77--103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Samuel R. Buss. 2012. Towards NP-P via proof complexity and search. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 163, 7 (2012), 906--917.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Samuel R. Buss and Peter Clote. 1996. Cutting planes, connectivity, and threshold logic. Arch. Math. Log. 35, 1 (1996), 33--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Samuel R. Buss and Grigori Mints. 1999. The complexity of the disjunction and existential properties in intuitionistic logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 99, 1--3 (1999), 93--104.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew Clegg, Jeff Edmonds, and Russell Impagliazzo. 1996. Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 174--183.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephen Cook and Tsuyoshi Morioka. 2005. Quantified propositional calculus and a second-order theory for NC1 . Arch. Math. Logic 44, 6 (2005), 711--749. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-005-0282-2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephen A. Cook. 1975. Feasibly constructive proofs and the propositional calculus. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 83--97.Google Scholar
- Stephen A. Cook and Phuong Nguyen. 2010. Logical Foundations of Proof Complexity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Stephen A. Cook and Robert A. Reckhow. 1979. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symb. Log. 6 (1979), 169--184.Google Scholar
- Stephen A. Cook and Neil Thapen. 2006. The strength of replacement in weak arithmetic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7, 4 (2006), 749--764.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephen A. Cook and Alasdair Urquhart. 1993. Functional interpretations of feasibly constructive arithmetic. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 63, 2 (1993), 103--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William Cook, Collette R. Coullard, and György Turán. 1987. On the complexity of cutting-plane proofs. Disc. Appl. Math. 18, 1 (1987), 25--38.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin Dowd. 1985. Model-Theoretic Aspects of P#NP. (1985). Unpublished manuscript. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337090251_Model_Theoretic_Aspects_of_P_N_P.Google Scholar
- Uwe Egly. 2012. On sequent systems and resolution for QBFs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT’12). 100--113.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Uwe Egly, Martin Kronegger, Florian Lonsing, and Andreas Pfandler. 2017. Conformant planning as a case study of incremental QBF solving. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 80, 1 (2017), 21--45. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-016-9501-2.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gerhard Gentzen. 1935. Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. Math. Zeit. 39 (1935), 68--131.Google Scholar
- Kaveh Ghasemloo and Ján Pich. 2013. A note on natural proofs and intuitionism. (2013). Retrieved from karlin.mff.cuni.cz/∼pich/natcons.pdf.Google Scholar
- Alexandra Goultiaeva, Allen Van Gelder, and Fahiem Bacchus. 2011. A uniform approach for generating proofs and strategies for both true and false QBF formulas. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11). 546--553.Google Scholar
- Amin Haken. 1985. The intractability of resolution. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 39 (1985), 297--308.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johan Håstad. 1986. Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC’86). ACM Press, 6--20.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marijn J. H. Heule, Martina Seidl, and Armin Biere. 2017. Solution validation and extraction for QBF preprocessing. J. Autom. Reason. 58, 1 (2017), 97--125.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pavel Hrubeš. 2009. On lengths of proofs in non-classical logics. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 157, 2--3 (2009), 194--205.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mikolás Janota and Joao Marques-Silva. 2015. Expansion-based QBF solving versus Q-resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 577 (2015), 25--42.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emil Jeřábek. 2005. Weak Pigeonhole Principle, and Randomized Computation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
- Emil Jeřábek. 2009. Substitution Frege and extended Frege proof systems in non-classical logics. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 159, 1--2 (2009), 1--48.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emil Jerábek and Phuong Nguyen. 2011. Simulating non-prenex cuts in quantified propositional calculus. Math. Log. Q. 57, 5 (2011), 524--532.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hans Kleine Büning, Marek Karpinski, and Andreas Flögel. 1995. Resolution for quantified Boolean formulas. Inf. Comput. 117, 1 (1995), 12--18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Krajícek and Gaisi Takeuti. 1992. On induction-free provability. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 6, 1--3 (1992), 107--125.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jan Krajíček. 1995. Bounded Arithmetic, Propositional Logic, and Complexity Theory. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 60. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Krajíček. 1997. Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems and independence results for bounded arithmetic. J. Symb. Log. 62, 2 (1997), 457--486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jan Krajíček and Pavel Pudlák. 1989. Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first order theories and the complexity of computations. J. Symb. Log. 54, 3 (1989), 1063--1079.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jan Krajíček and Pavel Pudlák. 1990. Quantified propositional calculi and fragments of bounded arithmetic. Zeit. Math. Log. Grund. Math. 36 (1990), 29--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jan Krajíček and Pavel Pudlák. 1998. Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures S12 for and EF. Inf. Computat. 140, 1 (1998), 82--94.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Krajíček, Pavel Pudlák, and Alan Woods. 1995. Exponential lower bounds to the size of bounded depth Frege proofs of the pigeonhole principle. Rand. Struct. Algor. 7, 1 (1995), 15--39.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David E. Muller and Franco P. Preparata. 1975. Bounds to complexities of networks for sorting and for switching. J. ACM 22, 2 (1975), 195--201.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rohit Parikh. 1971. Existence and feasibility in arithmetic. J. Symb. Log. 36, 3 (1971), 494--508.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Toniann Pitassi, Paul Beame, and Russell Impagliazzo. 1993. Exponential lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle. Computat. Complex. 3 (1993), 97--140.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pavel Pudlák. 1997. Lower bounds for resolution and cutting planes proofs and monotone computations. J. Symb. Log. 62, 3 (1997), 981--998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander A. Razborov. 1987. Lower bounds for the size of circuits of bounded depth with basis {8, ⊕}. Math. Notes Acad. Sci. USSR 41, 4 (1987), 333--338.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jussi Rintanen. 2007. Asymptotically optimal encodings of conformant planning in QBF. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’07). AAAI Press, 1045--1050.Google Scholar
- Ronald L. Rivest. 1987. Learning decision lists. Mach. Learn. 2, 3 (1987), 229--246.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Alan Robinson. 1965. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM 12, 1 (1965), 23--41.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan Segerlind. 2007. The complexity of propositional proofs. Bull. Symb. Log. 13, 4 (2007), 417--481.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roman Smolensky. 1987. Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC’87). 77--82.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Allen Van Gelder. 2012. Contributions to the theory of practical quantified Boolean formula solving. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’12). 647--663.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heribert Vollmer. 1999. Introduction to Circuit Complexity—A Uniform Approach. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Frege Systems for Quantified Boolean Logic
Recommendations
Lower Bounds: From Circuits to QBF Proof Systems
ITCS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer ScienceA general and long-standing belief in the proof complexity community asserts that there is a close connection between progress in lower bounds for Boolean circuits and progress in proof size lower bounds for strong propositional proof systems. Although ...
Understanding Gentzen and Frege Systems for QBF
LICS '16: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer ScienceRecently Beyersdorff, Bonacina, and Chew [10] introduced a natural class of Frege systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and showed strong lower bounds for restricted versions of these systems. Here we provide a comprehensive analysis of the new ...
A First-Order Expansion of Artemov and Protopopescu’s Intuitionistic Epistemic Logic
AbstractIntuitionistic epistemic logic by Artemov and Protopopescu (Rev Symb Log 9:266–298, 2016) accepts the axiom “if A, then A is known” (written ) in terms of the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation. There are two variants of intuitionistic ...
Comments