Scholarlink

<p>Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is the dominating algorithmic paradigm for SAT solving and hugely successful in practice. In its lifted version QCDCL, it is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). In both SAT and QBF, proofs can be efficiently extracted from runs of (Q)CDCL solvers. While for CDCL, it is known that the proof size in the underlying proof system propositional resolution matches the CDCL runtime up to a polynomial factor, we show that in QBF there is an exponential gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of the extracted proofs in QBF resolution systems. We demonstrate that this is not just a gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of <i>any</i> QBF resolution proof, but even the <i>extracted</i> proofs are exponentially smaller for some instances. Hence searching for a small proof via QCDCL (even with non-deterministic decision policies) will provably incur an exponential overhead for some instances.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Runtime vs. Extracted Proof Size: An Exponential Gap for CDCL on QBFs

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月12日

查看全文
  • Olaf Beyersdorff,
  • Benjamin Böhm,
  • Meena Mahajan

摘要

Conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) is the dominating algorithmic paradigm for SAT solving and hugely successful in practice. In its lifted version QCDCL, it is one of the main approaches for solving quantified Boolean formulas (QBF). In both SAT and QBF, proofs can be efficiently extracted from runs of (Q)CDCL solvers. While for CDCL, it is known that the proof size in the underlying proof system propositional resolution matches the CDCL runtime up to a polynomial factor, we show that in QBF there is an exponential gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of the extracted proofs in QBF resolution systems. We demonstrate that this is not just a gap between QCDCL runtime and the size of any QBF resolution proof, but even the extracted proofs are exponentially smaller for some instances. Hence searching for a small proof via QCDCL (even with non-deterministic decision policies) will provably incur an exponential overhead for some instances.