| dc.contributor.author | Abhimanyu Choudhury | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-04-02T08:57:10Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-04-02T08:57:10Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-01-29 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dspace.imsc.res.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/918 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Quantified Conflict Driven Clause Learning (QCDCL) is one of the main approaches to solving Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF). Cube-learning is employed in this approach to ensure that true formulas can be verified. Dependency Schemes help to detect spurious dependencies that are implied by the variable ordering in the quantifier prefix of QBFs but are not essential for constructing (counter)models. This detection can provably shorten refutations in specific proof systems, and is expected to speed up runs of QBF solvers. The simplest underlying proof system QCDCL [BB23a], formalises the reasoning in the QCDCL approach on false formulas, when neither cube-learning nor dependency schemes is used. The work of [BPB24] further incorporates cube-learning. This thesis is the first work that incorporates the dependency scheme heuristic in the QCDCL proof system. The usage of dependency schemes in QCDCL proof system with and with- out cube-learning are formalised and these new family of systems, the D1 + QCDCLORD (ClausePol, CubePol) proof systems, which incorporates dependency schemes into the proof system, and show it to be sound and complete. When the decisions are restricted to follow level order, but dependency schemes are used in propagation and learning, in conjunction with cube-learning, the resulting proof systems using the dependency schemes Dstd and Drrs are investigated in detail and their relative strengths are analysed. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract List of Figures List of Tables 1 Introduction 1.1Propositional Proof Complexity 1.2Quantified Boolean Formulas 1.3Our Contributions 2 QBF Proof Systems and Dependency Schemes 2.1Basic Notation 2.2Introduction to QBF Proof Systems 2.3Resolution based QBF proof systems 2.4Term Resolution based QBF proof systems 2.5The QCDCL proof system 2.6Dependency Schemes . 3 Adding Dependency Schemes to QCDCL based Proof Systems 3.1Ways of adding Dependency Schemes to QCDCL based systems 3.2Formalising the QCDCL proof system with Dependency Schemes 3.3Completeness and Soundness of QCDCL proof systems with Depen-dency Schemes 4 Some Relevant Formulae of Interest 4.1The PHP formula 4.2The QParity Formula 4.3The Equality Formula 4.4The Trapdoor Formula 4.5The TwinEq Formula 4.6The Dep-Trap Formula 4.7The TwoPHPandCT Formula 4.8The RRSTrapEq Formula 4.9The PreDepTrap Formula 4.10 The PropDep-Trap Formula 4.11 The DoubleLongEq Formula 4.12 The PreRRSTrapdoor Formula 4.13 The StdDepTrapFormula 5 Comparing the Relative Strengths of the QCDCL proof systems with Dependency Schemes 5.1QCDCL with LEV-ORD decisions and no cube-learning 5.2QCDCL with LEV-ORD decisions and cube-learning 5.3QCDCL based proof systems with D-ORD decision policy 6 Conclusion Bibliography | en_US |
| dc.publisher.publisher | The Institute of Mathematical Sciences | |
| dc.subject | Quantified CDCL | en_US |
| dc.subject | Dependency Schemes | en_US |
| dc.subject | QBF Proof Systems | en_US |
| dc.title | Quantified CDCL and Dependency Schemes: A proof-theoretic study [HBNI Th278] | en_US |
| dc.type.degree | Ph.D | en_US |
| dc.type.institution | HBNI | en_US |
| dc.description.advisor | Meena Mahajan | |
| dc.description.pages | iv,126p. | en_US |
| dc.type.mainsub | Mathematics | en_US |
| dc.type.hbnibos | Mathematical Sciences | en_US |