English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The ground-breaking paper “Short Proofs Are Narrow -- Resolution Made Simple” by Ben-Sasson and Wigderson (J. ACM 2001) introduces what is today arguably the main technique to obtain resolution lower bounds: to show a lower bound for the width of proofs. Another important measure for resolution is space, and in their fundamental work, Atserias and Dalmau (J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 2008) show that lower bounds for space again can be obtained via lower bounds for width.In this article, we assess whether similar techniques are effective for resolution calculi for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs). There are a number of different QBF resolution calculi like Q-resolution (the classical extension of propositional resolution to QBF) and the more recent calculi ∀Exp+Res and IR-calc. For these systems, a mixed picture emerges. Our main results show that the relations both between size and width and between space and width drastically fail in Q-resolution, even in its weaker tree-like version. On the other hand, we obtain positive results for the expansion-based resolution systems ∀Exp+Res and IR-calc, however, only in the weak tree-like models.Technically, our negative results rely on showing width lower bounds together with simultaneous upper bounds for size and space. For our positive results, we exhibit space and width-preserving simulations between QBF resolution calculi.

Are Short Proofs Narrow? QBF Resolution Is Not So Simple