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.

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 theextended resolutionlogical 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.

Lifting propositional proof compression algorithms to first-order logic

Proofs are a key feature of modern propositional and first-order theorem provers. Proofs generated by such tools serve as explanations for unsatisfiability of statements. However, these explanations are complicated by proofs which are not necessarily as concise as possible. There are a wide variety of compression techniques for propositional resolution proofs but fewer compression techniques for first-order resolution proofs generated by automated theorem provers. This paper describes an approach to compressing first-order logic proofs based on lifting proof compression ideas used in propositional logic to first-order logic. The first approach lifted from propositional logic delays resolution with unit clauses, which are clauses that have a single literal. The second approach is partial regularization, which removes an inference $\eta $ when it is redundant in the sense that its pivot literal already occurs as the pivot of another inference in every path from $\eta $ to the root of the proof. This paper describes the generalization of the algorithms LowerUnits and RecyclePivotsWithIntersection (Fontaine et al.. Compression of propositional resolution proofs via partial regularization. In Automated Deduction—CADE-23—23rd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Wroclaw, Poland, July 31–August 5, 2011, p. 237--251. Springer, 2011) from propositional logic to first-order logic. The generalized algorithms compresses resolution proofs containing resolution and factoring inferences with unification. An empirical evaluation of these approaches is included.

RAT Elimination

Inprocessing techniques have become one of the most promising advancements in SAT solving over the last decade. Some inprocessing techniques modify a propositional formula in non model-perserving ways. These operations are very problematic when Craig inter- polants must be extracted: existing methods take resolution proofs as an input, but these inferences require stronger proof systems; state-of-the-art solvers generate DRAT proofs. We present the first method to transform DRAT proofs into resolution-like proofs by elim- inating satisfiability-preserving RAT inferences. This solves the problem of extracting interpolants from DRAT proofs.

Partial Regularization of First-Order Resolution Proofs

Proofs are a key feature of modern propositional and first-order theorem provers. Proofs generated by such tools serve as explanations for unsatisfiability of statements. However, these explanations are complicated by proofs which are not necessarily as concise as possible. There are a wide variety of compression techniques for propositional resolution proofs, but fewer compression techniques for first-order resolution proofs generated by automated theorem provers. This paper describes an approach to compressing first-order logic proofs based on lifting proof compression ideas used in propositional logic to first-order logic. An empirical evaluation of the approach is included.

Hard Examples for Common Variable Decision Heuristics

The CDCL algorithm for SAT is equivalent to the resolution proof system under a few assumptions, one of them being an optimal non-deterministic procedure for choosing the next variable to branch on. In practice this task is left to a variable decision heuristic, and since the so-called VSIDS decision heuristic is considered an integral part of CDCL, whether CDCL with a VSIDS-like heuristic is also equivalent to resolution remained a significant open question.We give a negative answer by building a family of formulas that have resolution proofs of polynomial size but require exponential time to decide in CDCL with common heuristics such as VMTF, CHB, and certain implementations of VSIDS and LRB.