Solving the model counting problem #SAT, asking for the number of satisfying assignments of a propositional formula, has been explored intensively and has gathered its own community. While most existing solvers are based on knowledge compilation, another promising approach is through contraction in tensor hypernetworks. We perform a theoretical proof-complexity analysis of this approach. For this, we design two new tensor-based proof systems that we show to tightly correspond to tensor-based #SAT solving. We determine the simulation order of #SAT proof systems and prove exponential separations between the systems. This sheds light on the relative performance of different #SAT solving approaches.

Several proof systems for model counting have been introduced in recent years, mainly in an attempt to model #SAT solving and to allow proof logging of solvers. We reexamine these different approaches and show that: (i) with moderate adaptations, the conceptually quite different proof models of the dynamic system MICE and the static system of annotated Decision-DNNFs are equivalent and (ii) they tightly characterise state-of-the-art #SAT solving. Thus, these proof systems provide a precise and robust proof-theoretic underpinning of current model counting. We also propose new strengthenings of these proof systems that might lead to stronger model counters.

Strategy extraction in QBF proof systems usually attempts to extract winning strategies from valid proofs. However, an alternative (and arguably more powerful) view is to extract Skolem/Herbrand functions, or equivalently synthesis of the game values at all intermediate points. In this paper, we investigate the existence and properties of such proof systems from which one can extract Skolem and Herbrand functions. We propose such a proof system for QBF, which we show is sound and complete, and from which extraction of Skolem/Herbrand functions can be performed, and game values computed, in polynomial time. We also show that this system is optimal among all proof systems that allow efficient extraction of Skolem/Herbrand functions. We provide conditional lower bound results for our new proof system and compare it to several existing/standard proof systems for QBF that have been studied in the literature, showing interesting orthogonality results. Finally, we provide a compilation algorithm that takes an arbitrary QBF and synthesizes a proof in our system, from which Skolem and Herbrand functions can be easily computed.

CAQE (Clausal Abstraction for Quantifier Elimination) is currently the most successful algorithmic paradigm for solving Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF) practice-wise, clearly dominating recent QBF competitions. While apparently being a very strong solver, not much is known about CAQE theory-wise. We propose a framework for formalising runs in the basic CAQE algorithm (where failed assumptions are not considered) as proofs in a proof system CAQE^CORE, which we use to analyse the algorithm proof-theoretically and provide methods for future work to separate it from optimized versions of CAQE that are used in practice. We show that one can perform strategy extraction on the CAQE^CORE proof system in such a way that strategy size serves as a lower bound for basic CAQE runs. Furthermore, we introduce a measure, which we call CAQE width, which not only acts as a lower bound on CAQE^CORE proofs, but - with the quantifier depth as exponent - as an upper bound as well. Using this analysis, we prove that on QBFs of bounded quantifier complexity, both QCDCL (Quantified Conflict Driven Clause Learning, formalised as a proof system) and Q-resolution p-simulate CAQE^CORE and are indeed strictly stronger.

Abstract The propositional model counting problem #SAT asks to compute the number of satisfying assignments for a given propositional formula. Recently, three #SAT proof systems $$\textsf{kcps}$$ kcps (knowledge compilation proof system), $$\textsf{MICE}$$ MICE (model counting induction by claim extension), and $$\textsf{CPOG}$$ CPOG (certified partitioned-operation graphs) have been introduced with the aim to model #SAT solving and enable proof logging for solvers. A fourth system, $$\textsf{CLIP}$$ CLIP (circuit linear introduction proposition), is a very powerful proof system of theoretical interest. Prior to this paper, it was only known that $$\textsf{CLIP}$$ CLIP simulates the three other systems. All the remaining relations between the systems have been unclear and very few proof complexity results are known. We completely determine the simulation order of the four systems, establishing that $$\textsf{CPOG}$$ CPOG simulates both $$\textsf{MICE}$$ MICE and $$\textsf{kcps}$$ kcps , while $$\textsf{MICE}$$ MICE and $$\textsf{kcps}$$ kcps are exponentially incomparable. This implies that $$\textsf{CPOG}$$ CPOG is strictly stronger than the other two systems.

There has been tremendous progress in the past decade in the field of quantified Boolean formulas (QBF), both in practical solving as well as in creating a theory of corresponding proof systems and their proof complexity analysis. Both for solving and for proof complexity, it is important to have interesting formula families on which we can test solvers and gauge the strength of the proof systems. There are currently few such formula families in the literature. We initiate a general programme how to transform computationally hard problems (located in the polynomial hierarchy) into QBFs hard for the main QBF resolution systems Q-Res and QU-Res that relate to core QBF solvers. We illustrate this general approach on three problems from graph theory and logic. This yields QBF families that are provably hard for Q-Res and QU-Res (without any complexity assumptions).

Einsum expressions specify an output tensor in terms of several input tensors. They offer a simple yet expressive abstraction for many computational tasks in artificial intelligence and beyond. However, evaluating einsum expressions poses hard algorithmic problems that depend on the representation of the tensors. Two popular representations are multidimensional arrays and coordinate lists. The latter is a more compact representation for sparse tensors, that is, tensors where a significant proportion of the entries are zero. So far, however, most of the popular einsum implementations use the multidimensional array representation for tensors. Here, we show on a non-trivial example that, when evaluating einsum expressions, coordinate lists can be exponentially more efficient than multidimensional arrays. In practice, however, coordinate lists can also be significantly less efficient than multidimensional arrays, but it is hard to decide from the input tensors whether this will be the case. Sparsity evolves dynamically in intermediate tensors during the evaluation of an einsum expression. Therefore, we introduce a hybrid solution where the representation is switched on the fly from multidimensional arrays to coordinate lists depending on the sparsity of the remaining tensors. In our experiments on established benchmark einsum expressions, the hybrid solution is consistently competitive with or outperforms the better of the two static representations.

Abstract Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is the dominating algorithmic paradigm for SAT solving and hugely successful in practice. In its lifted version QCDCL, it is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). In both SAT and QBF, proofs can be efficiently extracted from runs of (Q)CDCL solvers. While for CDCL, it is known that the proof size in the underlying proof system propositional resolution matches the CDCL runtime up to a polynomial factor, we show that in QBF there is an exponential gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of the extracted proofs in QBF resolution systems. We demonstrate that this is not just a gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of any QBF resolution proof, but even the extracted proofs are exponentially smaller for some instances. Hence searching for a small proof via QCDCL (even with non-deterministic decision policies) will provably incur an exponential overhead for some instances.

Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is the dominating algorithmic paradigm for SAT solving and hugely successful in practice. In its lifted version QCDCL, it is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). In both SAT and QBF, proofs can be efficiently extracted from runs of (Q)CDCL solvers. While for CDCL, it is known that the proof size in the underlying proof system propositional resolution matches the CDCL runtime up to a polynomial factor, we show that in QBF there is an exponential gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of the extracted proofs in QBF resolution systems. We demonstrate that this is not just a gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of any QBF resolution proof, but even the extracted proofs are exponentially smaller for some instances. Hence searching for a small proof via QCDCL (even with non-deterministic decision policies) will provably incur an exponential overhead for some instances.

We continue the investigation on the relations of QCDCL and QBF resolution systems. In particular, we introduce QCDCL versions that tightly characterise QU-Resolution and (a slight variant of) long-distance Q-Resolution. We show that most QCDCL variants – parameterised by different policies for decisions, unit propagations and reductions – lead to incomparable systems for almost all choices of these policies.

Abstract Quantified conflict-driven clause learning (QCDCL) is one of the main solving approaches for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). One of the differences between QCDCL and propositional CDCL is that QCDCL typically follows the prefix order of the QBF for making decisions. We investigate an alternative model for QCDCL solving where decisions can be made in arbitrary order. The resulting system $$\textsf{QCDCL}^\textsf {{A\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$ QCDCLANY is still sound and terminating, but does not necessarily allow to always learn asserting clauses or cubes. To address this potential drawback, we additionally introduce two subsystems that guarantee to always learn asserting clauses ( $$\textsf{QCDCL}^\textsf {{U\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ni}}-A\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$ QCDCLUNI-ANY ) and asserting cubes ( $$\textsf{QCDCL}^\textsf {{E\tiny {\MakeUppercase {xi}}-A\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$ QCDCLEXI-ANY ), respectively. We model all four approaches by formal proof systems and show that $$\textsf{QCDCL}^\textsf {{U\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ni}}-A\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$ QCDCLUNI-ANY is exponentially better than $$\mathsf{{QCDCL}} $$ QCDCL on false formulas, whereas $$\textsf{QCDCL}^\textsf {{E\tiny {\MakeUppercase {xi}}-A\tiny {\MakeUppercase {ny}}}}$$ QCDCLEXI-ANY is exponentially better than $$\mathsf{{QCDCL}} $$ QCDCL on true QBFs. Technically, this involves constructing specific QBF families and showing lower and upper bounds in the respective proof systems. We complement our theoretical study with some initial experiments that confirm our theoretical findings.

To date, we know only a few handcrafted quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) that are hard for central QBF resolution systems such as Q-Res and QU-Res, and only one specific QBF family to separate Q-Res and QU-Res. Here we provide a general method to construct hard formulas for Q-Res and QU-Res. The construction uses simple propositional formulas (e.g. minimally unsatisfiable formulas) in combination with easy QBF gadgets (Σb2 formulas without constant winning strategies). This leads to a host of new hard formulas, including new classes of hard random QBFs. We further present generic constructions for formulas separating Q-Res and QU-Res, and for separating Q-Res and LD-Q-Res.

Abstract QCDCL is one of the main algorithmic paradigms for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). We design a new technique to show lower bounds for the running time in QCDCL algorithms. For this we model QCDCL by concisely defined proof systems and identify a new width measure for formulas, which we call gauge . We show that for a large class of QBFs, large (e.g. linear) gauge implies exponential lower bounds for QCDCL proof size. We illustrate our technique by computing the gauge for a number of sample QBFs, thereby providing new exponential lower bounds for QCDCL. Our technique is the first bespoke lower bound technique for QCDCL.

QBF solvers implementing the QCDCL paradigm are powerful algorithms that successfully tackle many computationally complex applications. However, our theoretical understanding of the strength and limitations of these QCDCL solvers is very limited. In this paper we suggest to formally model QCDCL solvers as proof systems. We define different policies that can be used for decision heuristics and unit propagation and give rise to a number of sound and complete QBF proof systems (and hence new QCDCL algorithms). With respect to the standard policies used in practical QCDCL solving, we show that the corresponding QCDCL proof system is incomparable (via exponential separations) to Q-resolution, the classical QBF resolution system used in the literature. This is in stark contrast to the propositional setting where CDCL and resolution are known to be p-equivalent. This raises the question what formulas are hard for standard QCDCL, since Q-resolution lower bounds do not necessarily apply to QCDCL as we show here. In answer to this question we prove several lower bounds for QCDCL, including exponential lower bounds for a large class of random QBFs. We also introduce a strengthening of the decision heuristic used in classical QCDCL, which does not necessarily decide variables in order of the prefix, but still allows to learn asserting clauses. We show that with this decision policy, QCDCL can be exponentially faster on some formulas. We further exhibit a QCDCL proof system that is p-equivalent to Q-resolution. In comparison to classical QCDCL, this new QCDCL version adapts both decision and unit propagation policies.

We provide a tight characterisation of proof size in resolution for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) via circuit complexity. Such a characterisation was previously obtained for a hierarchy of QBF Frege systems [ 16 ], but leaving open the most important case of QBF resolution. Different from the Frege case, our characterisation uses a new version of decision lists as its circuit model, which is stronger than the CNFs the system works with. Our decision list model is well suited to compute countermodels for QBFs. Our characterisation works for both Q-Resolution and QU-Resolution. Using our characterisation, we obtain a size-width relation for QBF resolution in the spirit of the celebrated result for propositional resolution [ 4 ]. However, our result is not just a replication of the propositional relation—intriguingly ruled out for QBF in previous research [ 12 ]—but shows a different dependence between size, width, and quantifier complexity. An essential ingredient is an improved relation between the size and width of term decision lists; this may be of independent interest. We demonstrate that our new technique elegantly reproves known QBF hardness results and unifies previous lower-bound techniques in the QBF domain.

Quantified conflict-driven clause learning (QCDCL) is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). We formalise and investigate several versions of QCDCL that include cube learning and/or pure-literal elimination, and formally compare the resulting solving models via proof complexity techniques. Our results show that almost all of the QCDCL models are exponentially incomparable with respect to proof size (and hence solver running time), pointing towards different orthogonal ways how to practically implement QCDCL.

To date, we know only a few handcrafted quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) that are hard for central QBF resolution systems such as Q-Res and QU-Res, and only one specific QBF family to separate Q-Res and QU-Res. Here we provide a general method to construct hard formulas for Q-Res and QU-Res. The construction uses simple propositional formulas (e.g. minimally unsatisfiable formulas) in combination with easy QBF gadgets (Σ₂^b formulas without constant winning strategies). This leads to a host of new hard formulas, including new classes of hard random QBFs. We further present generic constructions for formulas separating Q-Res and QU-Res, and for separating Q-Res and LD-Q-Res.

We investigate the proof complexity of modal resolution systems developed by Nalon and Dixon (J Algorithms 62(3-4):117-134, 2007) and Nalon et al. (in: Automated reasoning with analytic Tableaux and related methods-24th international conference, (TABLEAUX'15), pp 185-200, 2015), which form the basis of modal theorem proving (Nalon et al., in: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI'17), pp 4919-4923, 2017). We complement these calculi by a new tighter variant and show that proofs can be efficiently translated between all these variants, meaning that the calculi are equivalent from a proof complexity perspective. We then develop the first lower bound technique for modal resolution using Prover-Delayer games, which can be used to establish "genuine" modal lower bounds for size of dag-like modal resolution proofs. We illustrate the technique by devising a new modal pigeonhole principle, which we demonstrate to require exponential-size proofs in modal resolution. Finally, we compare modal resolution to the modal Frege systems of Hrubeš (Ann Pure Appl Log 157(2-3):194-205, 2009) and obtain a "genuinely" modal separation.

Abstract Strategy extraction is of great importance for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF), both in solving and proof complexity. So far in the QBF literature, strategy extraction has been algorithmically performedfromproofs. Here we devise the first QBF system where (partial) strategies are builtintothe proof and are piecewise constructed by simple operations along with the derivation. This has several advantages: (1) lines of our calculus have a clear semantic meaning as they are accompanied by semantic objects; (2) partial strategies are represented succinctly (in contrast to some previous approaches); (3) our calculus has strategy extraction by design; and (4) the partial strategies allow new sound inference steps which are disallowed in previous central QBF calculi such as Q-Resolution and long-distance Q-Resolution. The last item (4) allows us to show an exponential separation between our new system and the previously studied reductionless long-distance resolution calculus. Our approach also naturally lifts to dependency QBFs (DQBF), where it yields the first sound and complete CDCL-style calculus for DQBF, thus opening future avenues into CDCL-based DQBF solving.

We prove the first proof size lower bounds for the proof system Merge Resolution (MRes [Olaf Beyersdorff et al., 2020]), a refutational proof system for prenex quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) with a CNF matrix. Unlike most QBF resolution systems in the literature, proofs in MRes consist of resolution steps together with information on countermodels, which are syntactically stored in the proofs as merge maps. As demonstrated in [Olaf Beyersdorff et al., 2020], this makes MRes quite powerful: it has strategy extraction by design and allows short proofs for formulas which are hard for classical QBF resolution systems. Here we show the first exponential lower bounds for MRes, thereby uncovering limitations of MRes. Technically, the results are either transferred from bounds from circuit complexity (for restricted versions of MRes) or directly obtained by combinatorial arguments (for full MRes). Our results imply that the MRes approach is largely orthogonal to other QBF resolution models such as the QCDCL resolution systems QRes and QURes and the expansion systems ∀Exp+Res and IR.

We provide a tight characterisation of proof size in resolution for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) by circuit complexity. Such a characterisation was previously obtained for a hierarchy of QBF Frege systems (Beyersdorff & Pich, LICS 2016), but leaving open the most important case of QBF resolution. Different from the Frege case, our characterisation uses a new version of decision lists as its circuit model, which is stronger than the CNFs the system works with. Our decision list model is well suited to compute countermodels for QBFs.

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 AC 0 [ p ] circuits. In contrast, any non-trivial lower bound for propositional AC 0 [ 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.

We provide the first proof complexity results for QBF dependency calculi. By showing that the reflexive resolution path dependency scheme admits exponentially shorter Q-resolution proofs on a known family of instances, we answer a question first posed by Slivovsky and Szeider in 2014 [37]. Further, we conceive a method of QBF solving in which dependency recomputation is utilised as a form of inprocessing. Formalising this notion, we introduce a new version of Q-resolution in which a dependency scheme is applied dynamically. We demonstrate the further potential of this approach beyond that of the existing static system with an exponential separation. Last, we show that the same picture emerges in an analogous approach to the universal expansion paradigm.

Dependency quantified Boolean formulas (DQBF) and QBF dependency schemes have been treated separately in the literature, even though both treatments extend QBF by replacing the linear order of the quantifier prefix with a partial order. We propose to merge the two, by reinterpreting a dependency scheme as a mapping from QBF into DQBF. Our approach offers a fresh insight on the nature of soundness in proof systems for QBF with dependency schemes, in which a natural property called 'full exhibition' is central. We apply our approach to QBF proof systems from two distinct paradigms, termed 'universal reduction' and 'universal expansion'. We show that full exhibition is sufficient (but not necessary) for soundness in universal reduction systems for QBF with dependency schemes, whereas for expansion systems the same property characterises soundness exactly. We prove our results by investigating DQBF proof systems, and then employing our reinterpretation of dependency schemes. Finally, we show that the reflexive resolution path dependency scheme is fully exhibited, thereby proving a conjecture of Slivovsky.

We provide a characterisation for the size of proofs in tree-like Q-Resolution and tree-like QU-Resolution by a Prover–Delayer game, which is inspired by a similar characterisation for the proof size in classical tree-like Resolution. This gives one of the first successful transfers of one of the lower bound techniques for classical proof systems to QBF proof systems. We apply our technique to show the hardness of three classes of formulas for tree-like Q-Resolution. In particular, we give a proof of the hardness of the parity formulas from Beyersdorff et al. (2015) [10] for tree-like Q-Resolution and of the formulas of Kleine Büning et al. (1995) [29] for tree-like QU-Resolution.

As a natural extension of the SAT problem, an array of proof systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) have been proposed, many of which extend a propositional proof system to handle universal quantification. By formalising the construction of the QBF proof system obtained from a propositional proof system by adding universal reduction (Beyersdorff, Bonacina & Chew, ITCS `16), we present a new technique for proving proof-size lower bounds in these systems. The technique relies only on two semantic measures: the cost of a QBF, and the capacity of a proof. By examining the capacity of proofs in several QBF systems, we are able to use the technique to obtain lower bounds based on cost alone. As applications of the technique, we first prove exponential lower bounds for a new family of simple QBFs representing equality. The main application is in proving exponential lower bounds with high probability for a class of randomly generated QBFs, the first `genuine' lower bounds of this kind, which apply to the QBF analogues of resolution, Cutting Planes, and Polynomial Calculus. Finally, we employ the technique to give a simple proof of hardness for the prominent formulas of Kleine B\"uning, Karpinski and Fl\"ogel.

We provide the first proof complexity results for QBF dependency calculi. By showing that the reflexive resolution path dependency scheme admits exponentially shorter Q-resolution proofs on a known family of instances, we answer a question first posed by Slivovsky and Szeider (SAT 2014). Further, we introduce a new calculus in which a dependency scheme is applied dynamically. We demonstrate the further potential of this approach beyond that of the existing static system with an exponential separation.

As a natural extension of the SAT problem, an array of proof systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) have been proposed, many of which extend a propositional proof system to handle universal quantification. By formalising the construction of the QBF proof system obtained from a propositional proof system by adding universal reduction (Beyersdorff, Bonacina & Chew, ITCS'16), we present a new technique for proving proof-size lower bounds in these systems. The technique relies only on two semantic measures: the cost of a QBF, and the capacity of a proof. By examining the capacity of proofs in several QBF systems, we are able to use the technique to obtain lower bounds based on cost alone. As applications of the technique, we first prove exponential lower bounds for a new family of simple QBFs representing equality. The main application is in proving exponential lower bounds with high probability for a class of randomly generated QBFs, the first 'genuine' lower bounds of this kind, which apply to the QBF analogues of resolution, Cutting Planes, and Polynomial Calculus. Finally, we employ the technique to give a simple proof of hardness for a prominent family of QBFs.

We propose the first general technique for proving genuine lower bounds in expansion-based QBF proof systems. We present the technique in a framework centred on natural properties of winning strategies in the 'evaluation game' interpretation of QBF semantics. As applications, we prove an exponential proof-size lower bound for a whole class of formula families, and demonstrate the power of our approach over existing methods by providing alternative short proofs of two known hardness results. We also use our technique to deduce a result with manifest practical import: in the absence of propositional hardness, formulas separating the two major QBF expansion systems must have unbounded quantifier alternations.

The ground-breaking paper “Short Proofs Are Narrow -- Resolution Made Simple” by Ben-Sasson and Wigderson (J. ACM 2001) introduces what is today arguably the main technique to obtain resolution lower bounds: to show a lower bound for the width of proofs. Another important measure for resolution is space, and in their fundamental work, Atserias and Dalmau (J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 2008) show that lower bounds for space again can be obtained via lower bounds for width. In this article, we assess whether similar techniques are effective for resolution calculi for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs). There are a number of different QBF resolution calculi like Q-resolution (the classical extension of propositional resolution to QBF) and the more recent calculi ∀Exp+Res and IR-calc. For these systems, a mixed picture emerges. Our main results show that the relations both between size and width and between space and width drastically fail in Q-resolution, even in its weaker tree-like version. On the other hand, we obtain positive results for the expansion-based resolution systems ∀Exp+Res and IR-calc, however, only in the weak tree-like models. Technically, our negative results rely on showing width lower bounds together with simultaneous upper bounds for size and space. For our positive results, we exhibit space and width-preserving simulations between QBF resolution calculi.

We aim to understand inherent reasons for lower bounds for QBF proof systems, and revisit and compare two previous approaches in this direction. The first of these relates size lower bounds for strong QBF Frege systems to circuit lower bounds via strategy extraction (Beyersdorff & Pich, LICS'16). Here we show a refined version of strategy extraction and thereby for any QBF proof system obtain a trichotomy for hardness: (1) via circuit lower bounds, (2) via propositional Resolution lower bounds, or (3) `genuine' QBF lower bounds. The second approach tries to explain QBF lower bounds through quantifier alternations in a system called relaxing QU-Res (Chen, ICALP'16). We prove a strong lower bound for relaxing QU-Res, which also exhibits significant shortcomings of that model. Prompted by this we propose an alternative, improved version, allowing more flexible oracle queries in proofs. We show that lower bounds in our new model correspond to the trichotomy obtained via strategy extraction.

In sharp contrast to classical proof complexity we are currently short of lower bound techniques for QBF proof systems. In this paper we establish the feasible interpolation technique for all resolution-based QBF systems, whether modelling CDCL or expansion-based solving. This both provides the first general lower bound method for QBF proof systems as well as largely extends the scope of classical feasible interpolation. We apply our technique to obtain new exponential lower bounds to all resolution-based QBF systems for a new class of QBF formulas based on the clique problem. Finally, we show how feasible interpolation relates to the recently established lower bound method based on strategy extraction.

We define a cutting planes system CP+ForallRed for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and analyse the proof-theoretic strength of this new calculus. While in the propositional case, Cutting Planes is of intermediate strength between resolution and Frege, our findings here show that the situation in QBF is slightly more complex: while CP+ForallRed is again weaker than QBF Frege and stronger than the CDCL-based QBF resolution systems Q-Res and QU-Res, it turns out to be incomparable to even the weakest expansion-based QBF resolution system ForallExp+Res. Technically, our results establish the effectiveness of two lower bound techniques for CP+ForallRed: via strategy extraction and via monotone feasible interpolation.

A 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 there are famous examples where a transfer from ideas and techniques from circuit complexity to proof complexity has been effective, a formal connection between the two areas has never been established so far. Here we provide such a formal relation between lower bounds for circuit classes and lower bounds for Frege systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF).

Recently 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 extended Frege system from [10], denoted EF + ∀red, which is a natural extension of classical extended Frege EF.

The groundbreaking paper 'Short proofs are narrow - resolution made simple' by Ben-Sasson and Wigderson (J. ACM 2001) introduces what is today arguably the main technique to obtain resolution lower bounds: to show a lower bound for the width of proofs. Another important measure for resolution is space, and in their fundamental work, Atserias and Dalmau (J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 2008) show that space lower bounds again can be obtained via width lower bounds. Here we assess whether similar techniques are effective for resolution calculi for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). A mixed picture emerges. Our main results show that both the relations between size and width as well as between space and width drastically fail in Q-resolution, even in its weaker tree-like version. On the other hand, we obtain positive results for the expansion-based resolution systems Forall-Exp+Res and IR-calc, however only in the weak tree-like models. Technically, our negative results rely on showing width lower bounds together with simultaneous upper bounds for size and space. For our positive results we exhibit space and width-preserving simulations between QBF resolution calculi.

Proof systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) provide a theoretical underpinning for the performance of important QBF solvers. However, the proof complexity of these proof systems is currently not well understood and in particular lower bound techniques are missing. In this paper we exhibit a new and elegant proof technique for showing lower bounds in QBF proof systems based on strategy extraction. This technique provides a direct transfer of circuit lower bounds to lengths of proofs lower bounds. We use our method to show the hardness of a natural class of parity formulas for Q-resolution and universal Q-resolution. Variants of the formulas are hard for even stronger systems as long-distance Q-resolution and extensions. With a completely different lower bound argument we show the hardness of the prominent formulas of Kleine Büning et al. [34] for the strong expansion-based calculus IR-calc. Our lower bounds imply new exponential separations between two different types of resolution-based QBF calculi: proof systems for CDCL-based solvers (Q-resolution, long-distance Q-resolution) and proof systems for expansion-based solvers (forallExp+Res and its generalizations IR-calc and IRM-calc). The relations between proof systems from the two different classes were not known before.

We study the performance of DPLL algorithms on parameterized problems. In particular, we investigate how difficult it is to decide whether small solutions exist for satisfiability and other combinatorial problems. For this purpose we develop a Prover-Delayer game that models the running time of DPLL procedures and we establish an information-theoretic method to obtain lower bounds to the running time of parameterized DPLL procedures. We illustrate this technique by showing lower bounds to the parameterized pigeonhole principle and to the ordering principle. As our main application we study the DPLL procedure for the problem of deciding whether a graph has a small clique. We show that proving the absence of a k -clique requires n Ω(k) steps for a nontrivial distribution of graphs close to the critical threshold. For the restricted case of tree-like Parameterized Resolution, this result answers a question asked by Beyersdorff et al. [2012] of understanding the Resolution complexity of this family of formulas.

Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default logic as Σ2p-complete, and the complexity of the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem as Σ2p-complete, respectively Π2p-complete. Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i.e. semi-normal default rules. Selman used in 1992 a similar approach with disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this article, we systematically restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of Post's lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default logic. We show that the complexity is a hexachotomy (⁠Σ2p-, Δ2p-, NP-, P-, NL-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, while for the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem we obtain similar classifications without trivial cases.

A general framework for parameterized proof complexity was introduced by Dantchev, Martin, and Szeider [9]. There the authors concentrate on tree-like Parameterized Resolution—a parameterized version of classical Resolution—and their gap complexity theorem implies lower bounds for that system. The main result of the present paper significantly improves upon this by showing optimal lower bounds for a parameterized version of bounded-depth Frege. More precisely, we prove that the pigeonhole principle requires proofs of size n Ω(k) in parameterized bounded-depth Frege, and, as a special case, in dag-like Parameterized Resolution. This answers an open question posed in [9]. In the opposite direction, we interpret a well-known technique for FPT algorithms as a DPLL procedure for Parameterized Resolution. Its generalization leads to a proof search algorithm for Parameterized Resolution that in particular shows that tree-like Parameterized Resolution allows short refutations of all parameterized contradictions given as bounded-width CNF’s.

Cook and Krajíček have recently obtained the following Karp-Lipton collapse result in bounded arithmetic: if the theory PV proves NP⊆ P/ poly , then the polynomial hierarchy collapses to the Boolean hierarchy, and this collapse is provable in PV . Here we show the converse implication, thus answering an open question posed by Cook and Krajíček. We obtain this result by formalizing in PV a hard/easy argument of Buhrman et al. [2003]. In addition, we continue the investigation of propositional proof systems using advice, initiated by Cook and Krajíček. In particular, we obtain several optimality results for proof systems using advice. We further show that these optimal systems are equivalent to natural extensions of Frege systems.

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations---restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004).For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that in most applications, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism will not result in the desired speed up. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL+, and ECTL+.