Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:12:24.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An exponential lower bound for a constraint propagation proof system based on ordered binary decision diagrams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Jan Krajíček
Jan Krajíček*
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Žitná 25, Prague, 115 67, The, Czech Republic, E-mail: krajicek@math.cas.cz
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We prove an exponential lower bound on the size of proofs in the proof system operating with ordered binary decision diagrams introduced by Atserias, Kolaitis and Vardi [2]. In fact, the lower bound applies to semantic derivations operating with sets defined by OBDDs. We do not assume any particular format of proofs or ordering of variables, the hard formulas are in CNF. We utilize (somewhat indirectly) feasible interpolation.

We define a proof system combining resolution and the OBDD proof system.

Keywords

Proof complexityOBDDconstraint propagationfeasible interpolation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 2008, pp. 227 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Alon, N. and Boppana, R., The monotone circuit complexity of Boolean functions, Combinatorica, vol. 7 (1987), no. 1, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Atserias, A., Kolaitis, P., and Vardi, M., Constraint propagation as a proof system, 10th Int. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programing (Wallace, Mark, editor), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3258, Springer, 2004, pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
[3]Bonet, M. L., Pitassi, T., and Raz, R., Lower bounds for cutting planes proofs with small coefficients, this Journal, (1997), pp. 708–728.Google Scholar
[4]Bryant, R. E., Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation, IEEE Transactions on Computing, vol. C-35, 1986, pp. 677–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Bryant, R. E., Syntactic boolean manipulation with ordered binary decision diagrams, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 2493 (1992), pp. 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Cook, S. A. and Reckhow, A. R., The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, this Journal, vol. 44 (1979), no. 1, pp. 36–50.Google Scholar
[7]Dechter, R., Constraint processing, Morgan and Kaufman, 2003.Google Scholar
[8]Impagliazzo, R., Pitassi, T., and Urquhart, A., Upper and lower bounds for tree-like cutting planes proofs, Logic in computer science, 1994, pp. 220–228.Google Scholar
[9]Krajíček, J., Propositional proof complexity I, lecture notes available at http://www.math.cas.cz/~krajicek/ds1.ps.Google Scholar
[10]Krajíček, J., Lower bounds to the size of constant-depth propositional proofs, this Journal, vol. 59 (1994), no. 1, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
[11]Krajíček, J., Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 60, Cambridge University Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Krajíček, J., Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic, this Journal, vol. 62 (1997), no. 2, pp. 457–486.Google Scholar
[13]Krajíček, J., Discretely ordered modules as a first-order extension of the cutting planes proof system, this Journal, vol. 63 (1998), no. 4, pp. 1582–1596.Google Scholar
[14]Krajíček, J., On the weak pigeonhole principle, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 170 (2001), no. 1-3, pp. 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures for and EF”, Logic and computational complexity (Proc. of the meeting held in Indianapolis, October 1994) (Leivant, D., editor), Springer-Verlag, Revised version in: Information and Computation, vol. 140 (1998), no. 1, pp. 82–94.Google Scholar
[16]Kushilevitz, E. and Nisan, N., Communication complexity, Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Mikle-Barát, O., Strong proof systems, Master's thesis, Charles University, 2007, Available at the ECCC.Google Scholar
[18]Pudlák, P., Lower bounds for resolution and cutting plane proofs and monotone computations, this Journal, (1997), pp. 981–998.Google Scholar
[19]Pudlák, P., The lengths of proofs, Handbook of proof theory (Buss, S. R., editor), Elsevier, 1998, pp. 547–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Razborov, A. A., Unprovability of lower bounds on the circuit size in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic, Izvestiya of the R.A.N., vol. 59 (1995), no. 1, pp. 201–224.Google Scholar
[21]Wegener, I., The complexity of Boolean functions, John Willey and Sons and Teubner Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
[22]Wegener, I., Branching programs and binary decision diagrams — theory and applications, SIAM Monographs in Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar