skip to main content
research-article

Robust Satisfiability for CSPs: Hardness and Algorithmic Results

Published:01 November 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

An algorithm for a constraint satisfaction problem is called robust if it outputs an assignment satisfying at least a (1 − f(ε))-fraction of constraints for each (1 − ε)-satisfiable instance (i.e., such that at most a ε-fraction of constraints needs to be removed to make the instance satisfiable), where f(ε) → 0 as ε → 0. We establish an algebraic framework for analyzing constraint satisfaction problems admitting an efficient robust algorithm with functions f of a given growth rate. We use this framework to derive hardness results. We also describe three classes of problems admitting an efficient robust algorithm such that f is O(1/log (1/ε)), O(ε1/k) for some k > 1, and O(ε), respectively. Finally, we give a complete classification of robust satisfiability with a given f for the Boolean case.

References

  1. Arora, S. and Barak, B. 2009. Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Arora, S., Barak, B., and Steurer, D. 2010. Subexponential algorithms for unique games and related problems. In Proceedings of the 51st Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’10). 563--572. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Barto, L. and Kozik, M. 2009. Constraint satisfaction problems of bounded width. In Proceedings of the 50th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’09). 595--603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Barto, L. and Kozik, M. 2012. Robust satisfiability of constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the 44th Symposium on Theory of Computing Conference (STOC’12). 19--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Barto, L., Kozik, M., and Willard, R. 2012. Near unanimity constraints have bounded pathwidth duality. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual IEEE/ACM Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’12). 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bodnarchuk, V. G., Kaluzhnin, L. A., Kotov, V. N., and Romov, B. A. 1969. Galois theory for post algebras, i. Kibernetika 3, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulatov, A. 2006. A dichotomy theorem for constraint satisfaction problems on a 3-element set. J. ACM 53, 1, 66--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bulatov, A. 2009. Bounded relational width. http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~abulatov/papers/relwidth.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulatov, A. 2011. Complexity of conservative constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 12, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bulatov, A., Jeavons, P., and Krokhin, A. 2005. Classifying complexity of constraints using finite algebras. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 3, 720--742. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Bulatov, A., Krokhin, A., and Larose, B. 2008. Dualities for constraint satisfaction problems. In Complexity of Constraints, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5250, Springer, 93--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Bulatov, A. and Valeriote, M. 2008. Recent results on the algebraic aproach to the csp. In Complexity of Constraints, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5250, Springer, 68--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Burris, S. and Sankappanavar, H. P. 1981. A Course in Universal Algebra, Graduate Text in Mathematics. Springer. http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/ualg.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Carvalho, C., Dalmau, V., and Krokhin, A. 2010. CSP duality and trees of bounded pathwidth. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411, 34--36, 3188--3208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Carvalho, C., Dalmau, V., and Krokhin, A. 2011. Two new homomorphism dualities and lattice operations. J. Logic Comput. 21, 6, 1065--1092. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Charikar, M., Makarychev, K., and Markarychev, Y. 2009. Near-optimal algorithms for maximum constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Trans. Algor. 5, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Cohen, D., Cooper, M., Jeavons, P., and Krokhin, A. 2005. Supermodular functions and the complexity of Max CSP. Discr. Appl. Math. 149, 1--3, 53--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Cohen, D. and Jeavons, P. 2006. The complexity of constraint languages. In Handbook of Constraint Programming, F. Rossi, P. van Beek, and T. Walsh Eds., Elsevier, Chapter 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Creignou, N., Khanna, S., and Sudan, M. 2001. Complexity classifications of boolean constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Trans. SIAM Monographs Disc. Math. Appl. 7, 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Creignou, N., Kolaitis, P. G., and Vollmer, H., Eds. 2008. Complexity of Constraints. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5250, Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Dalmau, V. 2005. Linear datalog and bounded path duality of relational structures. Logical Methods in Comput. Sci. 1, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Dalmau, V. and Krokhin, A. 2008. Majority constraints have bounded pathwidth duality. Euro. J. Combinatorics 29, 4, 821--837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Dalmau, V. and Pearson, J. 1999. Set functions and width 1 problems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Constraint Programming (CP’99). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1713, Springer, 159--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Deineko, V., Jonsson, P., Klasson, M., and Krokhin, A. 2008. The approximability of Max CSP with fixed-value constraints. J. ACM 55, 4, 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Dinur, I. 2007. The PCP theorem by gap amplification. J. ACM 54, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Feder, T. and Vardi, M. 1998. The computational structure of monotone monadic snp and constraint satisfaction: A study through datalog and group theory. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 57--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Geiger, D. 1968. Closed systems of functions and predicates. Pacific J. Math. 27, 1, 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Gottlob, G., Leone, L., and Scarcello, F. 2009. Tractable optimization problems through hypergraph-based structural restrictions. In Proceedings of the 36th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (CALP’09). 16--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Gratzer, G. 2002. General Lattice Theory. Birkhauser.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Guruswami, V., Makarychev, Y., Raghavendra, P., Steurer, D., and Zhou, Y. 2011. Finding almost perfect graph bisections. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovations in Computer Science (ICS’11). 321--337.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Guruswami, V. and Zhou, Y. 2012. Tight bounds on the approximability of almost-satisfiable horn sat and exact hitting set. Theory Comput. 8, 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Håstad, J. 2001. Some optimal inapproximability results. J. ACM. 48, 798--859. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Håstad, J. 2008. Every 2-CSP allows nontrivial approximation. Comput. Complex. 17, 4, 549--566. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Hobby, D. and McKenzie, R. 1988. The Structure of Finite Algebras. American Mathematical Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonsson, P., Klasson, M., and Krokhin. A. 2006. The approximability of three-valued Max CSP. SIAM J. Comput. 35, 6, 1329--1349. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jonsson, P., Kuivinen, F., and Thapper, J. 2011. Min CSP on four elements: Moving beyond submodularity. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’11). 438--453. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Khot, S. 2002. On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 767--775. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Khot, S. 2010. On the unique games conjecture. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’10). 99--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Khot, S., Kindley, G., Mossel, E., and O’Donnell, R. 2007. Optimal inapproximability results for max-cut and other 2-variable CSPs. SIAM J. Comput. 37, 1, 319--357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Kolaitis, P. and Vardi, M. 2000. Conjunctive-query containment and constraint satisfaction. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 61, 302--332. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Kozik, M., Krokhin, A., Valeriote, M., and Willard, R. 2013. Characterizations of several maltsev conditions. http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rdwillar/documents/Publications/MaltsevPaper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kun, G., O’Donnell, R., Tamaki, S., Yoshida, Y., and Zhou, Y. 2012. Linear programming, width-1 CSPs, and robust satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS’12). 484--495. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Larose, B. and Tesson, P. 2009. Universal algebra and hardness results for constraint satisfaction problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410, 18, 1629--1647. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Loten, C. and Tardif, C. 2008. Majority functions on structures with finite duality. Euro. J. Combinatorics 29, 4, 979--986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Maróti, M. and McKenzie, R. 2008. Existence theorems for weakly symmetric operations. Algebra Universalis 59, 3--4, 463--489.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Marx, D. 2010. Tractable hypergraph properties for constraint satisfaction and conjunctive queries. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’10). 735--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Nesetril, J. and Tardif, C. 2000. Duality theorems for finite structures (characterising gaps and good characterisations). J. Combinatorial Theory, Ser.B 80, 80--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Raghavendra, P. 2008. Optimal algorithms and inapproximability results for every CSP? In Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’08). 245--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Szendrei, A. 1986. Clones in Universal Algebra. In Seminaire de Mathematiques Superieures, vol. 99, Les Presses del’ Universite de Montreal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Szendrei, A. 1992. A survey on strictly simple algebras and minimal varieties. In Research and Exposition in Mathematics, Heldermann, 209--239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Valeriote, M. 2009. A subalgebra intersection property for congruence distributive varieties. Canadian J. Math. 61, 2, 451--464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Zwick, U. 1998. Finding almost-satisfying assignments. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 551--560. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Robust Satisfiability for CSPs: Hardness and Algorithmic Results

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!