2010
DOI: 10.3233/sat190074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams, Pigeonhole Formulas and Beyond1

Abstract: Groote and Zantema proved that a particular OBDD computation of the pigeonhole formula has exponential size, and that limited OBDD derivations cannot simulate resolution polynomially. Here we show that an arbitrary OBDD refutation of the pigeonhole formula has exponential size: we prove that for any order of computation at least one intermediate OBDD in the proof has size Ω(1.14 n). We also present a family of CNFs that show an exponential blow-up for all OBDD refutations compared to unrestricted resolution re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Groote and Zantema proved that resolution and OBDDs do not simulate each other polynomially on arbitrary inputs for limited OBDD derivations [8]. Tveretina, Sinz and Zantema strengthened the above result and presented a class of CNFs hard for an arbitrary OBDD derivation and easy for resolution [17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Groote and Zantema proved that resolution and OBDDs do not simulate each other polynomially on arbitrary inputs for limited OBDD derivations [8]. Tveretina, Sinz and Zantema strengthened the above result and presented a class of CNFs hard for an arbitrary OBDD derivation and easy for resolution [17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…This was mentioned for OBDD e.g. in (Narodytska and Walsh 2007;Huang and Darwiche 2004), and proved for specific bottomup algorithms compiling unsatisfiable CNF formulas into OBDD in (Krajícek 2008;Tveretina, Sinz, and Zantema 2010;Friedman and Xu 2013). As remarked by these works, large intermediate results are problematic because they may lead to failed compilation due to memory outs or very long runtime even for instances that have small representations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Let us compare Corollary 1 with known exponential lower bounds on the size of intermediate results for similar refutation systems, see for instance (Krajícek 2008;Segerlind 2008;Tveretina, Sinz, and Zantema 2010;Friedman and Xu 2013). First, we are not aware of refutation systems using str-DNNF circuits that are not OBDD or branching programs.…”
Section: Tseitin Formulasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using that SAT solver we solve CNF formulas of the N-Queens problem and of the Pigeonhole Principle. The latter, as given in [36], expresses that there exists no isomorphism between the sets [N + 1] and [N ].…”
Section: Sat Solvermentioning
confidence: 99%