BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Olaf Beyersdorff

Olaf Beyersdorff contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Logic in Computer ScienceComputational Complexity

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Lifting QBF Resolution Calculi to DQBF

We examine the existing Resolution systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) and answer the question which of these calculi can be lifted to the more powerful Dependency QBFs (DQBF). An interesting picture emerges: While for QBF we have the strict chain of proof systems Q-Resolution < IR-calc < IRM-calc, the situation is quite different in DQBF. Q-Resolution and likewise universal Resolution are too weak: they are not complete. IR-calc has the right strength: it is sound and complete. IRM-calc is too strong: it is not sound any more, and the same applies to long-distance Resolution. Conceptually, we use the relation of DQBF to EPR and explain our new DQBF calculus based on IR-calc as a subsystem of FO-Resolution.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Hardness measures and resolution lower bounds

Various &#34;hardness&#34; measures have been studied for resolution, providing theoretical insight into the proof complexity of resolution and its fragments, as well as explanations for the hardness of instances in SAT solving. In this report we aim at a unified view of a number of hardness measures, including different measures of width, space and size of resolution proofs. We also extend these measures to all clause-sets (possibly satisfiable).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Tableau vs. Sequent Calculi for Minimal Entailment

In this paper we compare two proof systems for minimal entailment: a tableau system OTAB and a sequent calculus MLK, both developed by Olivetti (1992). Our main result shows that OTAB-proofs can be efficiently translated into MLK-proofs, i.e; MLK p-simulates OTAB. The simulation is technically very involved and answers an open question posed by Olivetti (1992) on the relation between the two calculi. We also show that the two systems are exponentially separated, i.e; there are formulas which have polynomial size MLK-proofs, but require exponential-size OTAB- proofs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Model Checking CTL is Almost Always Inherently Sequential

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations---restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004). For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that, in cases where the combined complexity is of relevance, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism cannot be expected to result in any significant speedup. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL+, and ECTL+.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Default Logic

Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default logic as $\SigmaPtwo$-complete, and the complexity of the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem as SigmaP2-complete, resp. PiP2-complete. Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i.e., semi-normal default rules. Selman made in 1992 a similar approach with disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this paper we systematically restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of Post&#39;s lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default logic. We show that the complexity is a hexachotomy (SigmaP2-, DeltaP2-, NP-, P-, NL-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, while for the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem we obtain similar classifications without trivial cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access