Abstract
We prove that extended resolution—a well-known proof system introduced by Tseitin—polynomially simulates \({\mathsf {DRAT}}\), the standard proof system in modern SAT solving. Our simulation procedure takes as input a \({\mathsf {DRAT}}\) proof and transforms it into an extended-resolution proof whose size is only polynomial with respect to the original proof. Based on our simulation, we implemented a tool that transforms \({\mathsf {DRAT}}\) proofs into extended-resolution proofs. We ran our tool on several benchmark formulas to estimate the increase in size caused by our simulation in practice. Finally, as a side note, we show how blocked-clause addition—a generalization of the extension rule from extended resolution—can be used to replace the addition of resolution asymmetric tautologies in \({\mathsf {DRAT}}\) without introducing new variables.
This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation under grant CCF-1618574, by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under project W1255-N23, and by Microsoft Research through its PhD Scholarship Programme.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The simulation tool, checkers, formulas, and proofs discussed in this section are available on http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/drat2er.
References
Baaz, M., Leitsch, A.: Methods of Cut-Elimination. Trends in Logic, vol. 3. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Biere, A.: Two pigeons per hole problem. In: Proceedings of SAT Competition 2013: Solver and Benchmark Descriptions, p. 103 (2013)
Chatalic, P., Simon, L.: Multi-resolution on compressed sets of clauses. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2000), pp. 2–10 (2000)
Cook, S.A.: A short proof of the pigeon hole principle using extended resolution. SIGACT News 8(4), 28–32 (1976)
Cook, S.A., Reckhow, R.A.: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symb. Log. 44(1), 36–50 (1979)
Haken, A.: The intractability of resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 39, 297–308 (1985)
Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: What a difference a variable makes. In: Beyer, D., Huisman, M. (eds.) TACAS 2018. LNCS, vol. 10806, pp. 75–92. Springer, Cham (2018)
Heule, M.J.H., Kiesl, B., Biere, A.: Short proofs without new variables. In: de Moura, L. (ed.) CADE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10395, pp. 130–147. Springer, Cham (2017)
Järvisalo, M., Biere, A., Heule, M.J.H.: Blocked clause elimination. In: Esparza, J., Majumdar, R. (eds.) TACAS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6015, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Järvisalo, M., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Inprocessing rules. In: Gramlich, B., Miller, D., Sattler, U. (eds.) IJCAR 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7364, pp. 355–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Jussila, T., Sinz, C., Biere, A.: Extended resolution proofs for symbolic SAT solving with quantification. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 54–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Konev, B., Lisitsa, A.: Computer-aided proof of Erdős discrepancy properties. Artif. Intell. 224(C), 103–118 (2015)
Kullmann, O.: On a generalization of extended resolution. Discret. Appl. Math. 96–97, 149–176 (1999)
Lee, C.T.: A completeness theorem and a computer program for finding theorems derivable from given axioms. Ph.D. thesis (1967)
Philipp, T., Rebola-Pardo, A.: Towards a semantics of unsatisfiability proofs with inprocessing. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR-21). EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 46, pp. 65–84. EasyChair (2017)
Sinz, C., Biere, A.: Extended resolution proofs for conjoining BDDs. In: Grigoriev, D., Harrison, J., Hirsch, E.A. (eds.) CSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 3967, pp. 600–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Tseitin, G.S.: On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. Stud. Math. Math. Log. 2, 115–125 (1968)
Urquhart, A.: The complexity of propositional proofs. Bull. Symb. Log. 1(4), 425–467 (1995)
Van Gelder, A.: Verifying RUP proofs of propositional unsatisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (ISAIM 2008) (2008)
Van Gelder, A.: Producing and verifying extremely large propositional refutations. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 65(4), 329–372 (2012)
Wetzler, N., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt Jr., W.A.: DRAT-trim: efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 422–429. Springer, Cham (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kiesl, B., Rebola-Pardo, A., Heule, M.J.H. (2018). Extended Resolution Simulates DRAT. In: Galmiche, D., Schulz, S., Sebastiani, R. (eds) Automated Reasoning. IJCAR 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10900. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94205-6_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94204-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94205-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)