Optimality of Size-Width Tradeoffs for Resolution

Computational Complexity

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 261-276

  Bonet, Maria Luisa ^a   Galesi, Nicola ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Automated theorem proving; Complexity of proofs; Resolution

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038036843     PISSN: 10163328     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s000370100000     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. M. ALEKHNOVICH & A. RAZBOROV (2001). Resolution is not automatixable unless W[P] is tractable. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 190-199.
2. P. BEAME & T. PITASSI (1996). Simplified and improved resolution lower bounds. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 274-282.
3. E. BEN-SASSON, R. IMPAGLIAZZO & A. WIGDERSON (2001). Near optimal separations of general and tree-like resolution. Submitted. Appeared in the ECCC as TR00-005.
4. E. BEN-SASSON & A. WIGDERSON (2001). Short proofs are narrow - resolution made simple. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 48, 149-168. A preliminary version appeared in Proc. 1999 Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing.
5. M. BONET, C. DOMINGO, R. GAVALDÁ, A. MACIEL & T. PITASSI (1998). Non-automatizability of bounded-depth Frege proofs. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 15-23. To appear in J. Comput. Complexity.
6. M. L. BONET, J. L. ESTEBAN, N. GALESI & J. JOHANNSEN (2000a). On the relative complexity of resolution refinements and cutting planes proof systems. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 1462-1484. A preliminary version appeared in Proc. 1999 IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science with the title Exponential separations between restricted resolution and cutting planes proof systems.
7. M. L. BONET & N. GALESI (1999). A study of proof search algorithms for resolution and polynomial calculus. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 422-431.
8. 0-Frege proofs.
9. M. CLEGG, J. EDMONDS & R. IMPAGLIAZZO (1996). Using the Groebner basis algorithm to find proofs of unsatisfiability. In Proc. 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (Philadelphia, PA), 174-183.
10. S. COOK & R. RECKHOW (1979). The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symbolic Logic 44, 36-50.
11. M. DAVIS, G. LOGEMANN & D. LOVELAND (1962). A machine program for theorem proving. Comm. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 5, 394-297.
12. A. HAKEN (1985). The intractability of resolution. Theoret. Comput, Sci 39, 297-308.
13. 1 and EF. Inform, and Comput. 140, 82-94. Preliminary version in D. Leivant (ed.), LCC '94, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 960, Springer, 1995.
14. 1 and EF. Inform, and Comput. 140, 82-94. Preliminary version in D. Leivant (ed.), LCC '94, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 960, Springer, 1995.
15. B. KRISHNAMURTHY (1985). Short proofs for tricky formulas. Acta Inform. 22, 253-275.
16. R. RAZ (2002). Resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole principle. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), to appear.
17. A. RAZBOROV (2002). Improved resolution lower bounds for the weak pigeonhole functional principle. Theoret. Comput. Sci., to appear.
18. G. STALMARK (1996). Short resolution proofs for a sequence of tricky formulas. Acta Inform. 33, 277-280.