reordering rule makes obdd proof systems stronger

play

Reordering Rule Makes OBDD Proof Systems Stronger Sam Buss 1 Dmitry - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 17, 2023 •212 likes •698 views

Reordering Rule Makes OBDD Proof Systems Stronger Sam Buss 1 Dmitry Itsykson 2 Alexander Knop 1 Dmitry Sokolov 3 1 University of California, San Diego 2 St. Petersburg Department of V.A. Steklov Institute of Mathematics 3 KTH Royal Institute of

Reordering Rule Makes OBDD Proof Systems Stronger Sam Buss 1 Dmitry Itsykson 2 Alexander Knop 1 Dmitry Sokolov 3 1 University of California, San Diego 2 St. Petersburg Department of V.A. Steklov Institute of Mathematics 3 KTH Royal Institute of Technology Computational Complexity Conference June 23, 2018 Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 1/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) x 1 OBDD s represent Boolean functions { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } ; 0 1 π is an ordering of variables; x 2 x 2 if i < j then x π ( j ) cannot appear 0 0 before x π ( i ) . 1 1 x 3 x 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Ordered binary decision diagram ( OBDD ) OBDD proofs of unsatisfiability: x 1 0 1 sequence of OBDD s: D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , . . . , D m ; x 2 x 2 D m ≡ 0; 0 0 OBDD s for axioms. 1 1 Rules: x 3 x 3 ∧ (join): D i , D j ⇒ D k ≡ ( D i ∧ D j ) ; 0 0 w (weakening): D i ⇒ D j , D i | = D j ; 1 1 r (reordering): D i ⇒ D j , D j ≡ D i 0 1 but orders of variables are different. Join rule can be applied only for OBDD s in the same order. Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 2/11
Orders are important f : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } ; Alice knows x 1 , . . . , x n ∈ { 0 , 1 } , Bob knows y 1 , . . . , y m ∈ { 0 , 1 } ; they want to compute f ( x , y ) ; assume that f has an OBDD of size S in some order in that all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s; communication complexity of f is at most log S + 1; EQ : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } , EQ ( x , y ) = 1 ⇔ x = y ; if all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s in π , then size of any π - OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) is at least 2 n ; ∃ short OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) in the order x 1 , y 1 , x 2 , y 2 , . . . , x n , y n . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 3/11
Orders are important f : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } ; Alice knows x 1 , . . . , x n ∈ { 0 , 1 } , Bob knows y 1 , . . . , y m ∈ { 0 , 1 } ; they want to compute f ( x , y ) ; assume that f has an OBDD of size S in some order in that all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s; communication complexity of f is at most log S + 1; EQ : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } , EQ ( x , y ) = 1 ⇔ x = y ; if all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s in π , then size of any π - OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) is at least 2 n ; ∃ short OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) in the order x 1 , y 1 , x 2 , y 2 , . . . , x n , y n . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 3/11
Orders are important f : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } ; Alice knows x 1 , . . . , x n ∈ { 0 , 1 } , Bob knows y 1 , . . . , y m ∈ { 0 , 1 } ; they want to compute f ( x , y ) ; assume that f has an OBDD of size S in some order in that all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s; communication complexity of f is at most log S + 1; EQ : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } , EQ ( x , y ) = 1 ⇔ x = y ; if all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s in π , then size of any π - OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) is at least 2 n ; ∃ short OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) in the order x 1 , y 1 , x 2 , y 2 , . . . , x n , y n . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 3/11
Orders are important f : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } m → { 0 , 1 } ; Alice knows x 1 , . . . , x n ∈ { 0 , 1 } , Bob knows y 1 , . . . , y m ∈ { 0 , 1 } ; they want to compute f ( x , y ) ; assume that f has an OBDD of size S in some order in that all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s; communication complexity of f is at most log S + 1; EQ : { 0 , 1 } n × { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } , EQ ( x , y ) = 1 ⇔ x = y ; if all x i ’s preceed all y j ’s in π , then size of any π - OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) is at least 2 n ; ∃ short OBDD for EQ ( x , y ) in the order x 1 , y 1 , x 2 , y 2 , . . . , x n , y n . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 3/11
OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs [Atserias, Kolaitis, Vardi 04] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) simulates CP ∗ ⇒ PHP n + 1 = has proofs of poly size; n unsatisfiable linear systems over F 2 have short proofs; [Segerlind 07] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for tree-like OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; cek 08] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for dag-like [Kraj´ ıˇ OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) is exponentially stronger than CP ∗ . [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w , r ) is exponentially stronger than OBDD ( ∧ , w ) . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 4/11
OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs [Atserias, Kolaitis, Vardi 04] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) simulates CP ∗ ⇒ PHP n + 1 = has proofs of poly size; n unsatisfiable linear systems over F 2 have short proofs; [Segerlind 07] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for tree-like OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; cek 08] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for dag-like [Kraj´ ıˇ OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) is exponentially stronger than CP ∗ . [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w , r ) is exponentially stronger than OBDD ( ∧ , w ) . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 4/11
OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs [Atserias, Kolaitis, Vardi 04] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) simulates CP ∗ ⇒ PHP n + 1 = has proofs of poly size; n unsatisfiable linear systems over F 2 have short proofs; [Segerlind 07] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for tree-like OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; cek 08] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for dag-like [Kraj´ ıˇ OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) is exponentially stronger than CP ∗ . [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w , r ) is exponentially stronger than OBDD ( ∧ , w ) . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 4/11
OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs [Atserias, Kolaitis, Vardi 04] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) simulates CP ∗ ⇒ PHP n + 1 = has proofs of poly size; n unsatisfiable linear systems over F 2 have short proofs; [Segerlind 07] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for tree-like OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; cek 08] 2 n Ω( 1 ) lower bound for dag-like [Kraj´ ıˇ OBDD ( ∧ , w ) -proofs; [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w ) is exponentially stronger than CP ∗ . [this paper] OBDD ( ∧ , w , r ) is exponentially stronger than OBDD ( ∧ , w ) . Sokolov D. | OBDD Proof Systems 4/11

Download Presentation

Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

More recommend