Redundancy rules for MaxSAT
Ilario Bonacina, Maria Luisa Bonet, Sam Buss, Massimo Lauria

TL;DR
This paper introduces a structured hierarchy of redundancy proof systems for MaxSAT, aiming to analyze proof complexity, with rules that are polynomially checkable, simpler, and more integrable with current solvers.
Contribution
It defines new MaxSAT proof systems based on redundancy hierarchies, compares their strengths, and discusses their integration with existing MaxSAT resolution proof systems.
Findings
Rules are polynomially checkable and simpler than previous systems.
The hierarchy includes MaxSAT variants of proof systems like SPR, PR, SR.
A short cost-SR proof for the weak pigeonhole principle is provided.
Abstract
The concept of redundancy in SAT leads to more expressive and powerful proof search techniques, e.g., able to express various inprocessing techniques, and originates interesting hierarchies of proof systems [Heule etal'20, Buss-Thapen'19]. Redundancy has also been integrated in MaxSAT [Ihalainen etal'22, Berg etal'23, Bonacina etal'24]. In this paper, we define a structured hierarchy of redundancy proof systems for MaxSAT, with the goal of studying its proof complexity. We obtain MaxSAT variants of proof systems such as SPR, PR, SR, and others, previously defined for SAT. All our rules are polynomially checkable, unlike [Ihalainen etal'22]. Moreover, they are simpler and weaker than [Berg etal'23], and possibly amenable to lower bounds. This work also complements the approach of [Bonacina etal'24]. Their proof systems use different rule sets for soft and hard…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFormal Methods in Verification · Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization · Logic, programming, and type systems
