Structured d-DNNF Is Not Closed Under Negation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Both structured d-DNNF and SDD can be exponentially more succinct than OBDD. Moreover, SDD is essentially as tractable as OBDD. But this has left two important open questions. Firstly, does OBDD support more tractable transformations than structured d-DNNF? And secondly, is structured d-DNNF more succinct than SDD? In this paper, we answer both questions in the affirmative. For the first question we show that, unlike OBDD, structured d-DNNF does not support polytime negation, disjunction, or existential quantification operations. As a corollary, we deduce that there are functions with an equivalent polynomial-sized structured d-DNNF but with no such representation as an SDD, thus answering the second question. We also lift this second result to arithmetic circuits (AC) to show a succinctness gap between PSDD and the monotone AC analogue to structured d-DNNF.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2024.
Builds on
5 of 29 references.
References · 5
- 2016SDDs are Exponentially More Succinct than OBDDscited by 19
- 2018Connecting Knowledge Compilation Classes and Width Parameterscited by 9
- 2015New Limits for Knowledge Compilation and Applications to Exact Model Countingcited by 5
- 2017Circuit Treewidth, Sentential Decision, and Query Compilationcited by 2
- 2019On the relation between structured d-DNNFs and SDDscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026A canonical generalization of OBDDcited by 0
- 2026A canonical generalization of OBDD7 Apr 2026