Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • Satisfiability (SAT) solvers are used to determine the correctness of hardware and software systems [4,16]

  • We show that F |α ⊇ F |αL, which implies that F |α 1 F |αL, and that C is set-propagation redundant with respect to F

  • Given that Fi contains i clauses, we know that the size of PRcheck (formula Fm = C1, . . . , Cm; propagation redundant (PR) proof (Cm+1, ωm+1), . . . , (Cn, ωn)) for i ∈ {m + 1, . . . , n} do for D ∈ Fi−1 do if D |ωi = and (D |αi = or D |ωi ⊂ D |αi) if Fi−1 |αi 1 D |ωi return failure Fi := Fi−1 ∪ {Ci} return success

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Satisfiability (SAT) solvers are used to determine the correctness of hardware and software systems [4,16]. This holds for various other applications that use SAT solvers. Long-standing mathematical problems were solved using SAT, including the Erdos Discrepancy Problem [21], the Pythagorean Triples Problem [13], and the computation of the fifth Schur number [10]. In such cases, proofs are at the center of attention and without them the result of a solver is almost worthless. As the size of proofs is influenced by the strength of their underlying proof system, the search for shorter proofs goes hand in hand with the search for stronger proof systems

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call