Short proofs are narrow—resolution made simple

The widthof a Resolution proof is defined to be the maximal number of literals in any clause of the proof. In this paper, we relate proof width to proof length (=size), in both general Resolution, and its tree-like variant. The following consequences of these relations reveal width as a crucial “resource” of Resolution proofs. In one direction, the relations allow us to give simple, unified proofs for almost all known exponential lower bounds on size of resolution proofs, as well as several interesting new ones. They all follow from width lower bounds, and we show how these follow from natural expansion property of clauses of the input tautology. In the other direction, the width-size relations naturally suggest a simple dynamic programming procedure for automated theorem proving—one which simply searches for small width proofs. This relation guarantees that the runnuing time (and thus the size of the produced proof) is at most quasi-polynomial in the smallest tree-like proof. This algorithm is never much worse than any of the recursive automated provers (such as DLL) used in practice. In contrast, we present a family of tautologies on which it is exponentially faster.

[1]  Zvi Galil,et al.  On the validity and complexity of bounded resolution , 1975, STOC.

[2]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  On the Relative Complexity of Resolution Refinements and Cutting Planes Proof Systems , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[3]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  The Complexity of Propositional Proofs , 1995, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.

[4]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[5]  Alexander A. Razborov,et al.  Natural Proofs , 2007 .

[6]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The Relative Efficiency of Propositional Proof Systems , 1979, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[7]  A. Razborov Unprovability of lower bounds on circuit size in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic , 1995 .

[8]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Lower bounds for the polynomial calculus and the Gröbner basis algorithm , 1999, computational complexity.

[9]  G. S. Tseitin On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus , 1983 .

[10]  Ran Raz,et al.  Separation of the Monotone NC Hierarchy , 1999, Comb..

[11]  Armin Haken,et al.  The Intractability of Resolution , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  Exponential separations between restricted resolution and cutting planes proof systems , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[13]  Zvi Galil On Resolution with Clauses of Bounded Size , 1977, SIAM J. Comput..

[14]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability , 1996, STOC '96.

[15]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  Hard examples for resolution , 1987, JACM.

[16]  Alexander A. Razborov,et al.  Read-once branching programs, rectangular proofs of the pigeonhole principle and the transversal calculus , 1997, STOC '97.

[17]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Resolution and the Weak Pigeonhole Principle , 1997, CSL.

[18]  Maria Luisa Bonet,et al.  A study of proof search algorithms for resolution and polynomial calculus , 1999, 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.99CB37039).

[19]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Space bounds for a game on graphs , 1976, STOC '76.

[20]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  On the complexity of unsatisfiability proofs for random k-CNF formulas , 1998, STOC '98.

[21]  Endre Szemerédi,et al.  Many hard examples for resolution , 1988, JACM.

[22]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Simplified and improved resolution lower bounds , 1996, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science.

[23]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  Resolution Proofs of Generalized Pigeonhole Principles , 1988, Theor. Comput. Sci..