Proof Complexity of Modal Resolution

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.

A Formal Verification Method of Compilation Based on C Safety Subset

With the rapid increase in the number of wireless terminals and the openness of wireless networks, the security of wireless communication is facing serious challenges. The safety and security of computer communication have always been a research hotspot, especially the wireless communication that still has a more complex architecture which leads to more safety problems in the communication system development. In recent years, more and more wireless communication systems are applied in the safety-critical field which tends to need high safety guarantees. A compiler is an important tool for system development, and its safety and reliability have an important impact on the development of safety-critical software. As the strictest method, formal verification methods have been widely paid attention to in compiler verification, but the current formal verification methods have some problems, such as high proof complexity, weak verification ability, and low algorithm efficiency. In this paper, a compiler formal verification method based on safety C subsets is proposed. By abstracting the concept of C grammar units from safety C subsets, the formal verification of the compiler is transformed into the verification of limited C grammar units. In this paper, an axiom system of first-order logic and special axioms are introduced. On this axiom system, the semantic consistency verification of C grammar unit and target code pattern is completed by means of theorem proving, and the formal verification of the compiler is completed.

Chapter 31. Quantified Boolean Formulas

Solvers for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) have become powerful tools for tackling hard computational problems from various application domains, even beyond the scope of SAT. This chapter gives a description of the main algorithmic paradigms for QBF solving, including quantified conflict driven clause learning (QCDCL), expansion-based solving, dependency schemes, and QBF preprocessing. Particular emphasis is laid on the connections of these solving approaches to QBF proof systems: Q-Resolution and its variants in the case of QCDCL, expansion QBF resolution calculi for expansion-based solving, and QRAT for preprocessing. The chapter also surveys the relations between the various QBF proof systems and results on their proof complexity, thereby shedding light on the diverse performance characteristics of different solving approaches that are observed in practice.

Chapter 7. Proof Complexity and SAT Solving

This chapter gives an overview of proof complexity and connections to SAT solving, focusing on proof systems such as resolution, Nullstellensatz, polynomial calculus, and cutting planes (corresponding to conflict-driven clause learning, algebraic approaches using linear algebra or Gröbner bases, and pseudo-Boolean solving, respectively). There is also a discussion of extended resolution (which is closely related to DRAT proof logging) and Frege and extended Frege systems more generally. An ample supply of references for further reading is provided, including for some topics omitted in this chapter.

Computational and Proof Complexity of Partial String Avoidability

The partial string avoidability problem is stated as follows: given a finite set of strings with possible “holes” (wildcard symbols), determine whether there exists a two-sided infinite string containing no substrings from this set, assuming that a hole matches every symbol. The problem is known to be NP-hard and in PSPACE, and this article establishes its PSPACE-completeness. Next, string avoidability over the binary alphabet is interpreted as a version of conjunctive normal form satisfiability problem, where each clause has infinitely many shifted variants. Non-satisfiability of these formulas can be proved using variants of classical propositional proof systems, augmented with derivation rules for shifting proof lines (such as clauses, inequalities, polynomials, etc.). First, it is proved that there is a particular formula that has a short refutation in Resolution with a shift rule but requires classical proofs of exponential size. At the same time, it is shown that exponential lower bounds for classical proof systems can be translated for their shifted versions. Finally, it is shown that superpolynomial lower bounds on the size of shifted proofs would separate NP from PSPACE; a connection to lower bounds on circuit complexity is also established.