skip to main content
research-article

A Galois Connection for Weighted (Relational) Clones of Infinite Size

Published:11 May 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A Galois connection between clones and relational clones on a fixed finite domain is one of the cornerstones of the so-called algebraic approach to the computational complexity of non-uniform Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs). Cohen et al. established a Galois connection between finitely-generated weighted clones and finitely-generated weighted relational clones [SICOMP’13], and asked whether this connection holds in general. We answer this question in the affirmative for weighted (relational) clones with real weights and show that the complexity of the corresponding valued CSPs is preserved.

References

  1. Libor Barto and Marcin Kozik. 2014. Constraint satisfaction problems solvable by local consistency methods. J. ACM 61, 1 (2014), Article No. 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Libor Barto, Marcin Kozik, and Todd Niven. 2009. The CSP dichotomy holds for digraphs with no sources and no sinks (a positive answer to a conjecture of Bang-Jensen and Hell). SIAM J. Comput. 38, 5 (2009), 1782--1802. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. V. G. Bodnarčuk, L. A. Kalužnin, V. N. Kotov, and B. A. Romov. 1969. Galois theory for Post algebras. I. Cybernetics Syst. Anal. 5, 3 (1969), 243--252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Andrei Bulatov. 2004. A graph of a relational structure and constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings 19th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’04). IEEE Computer Society, 448--457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Andrei Bulatov. 2006. A dichotomy theorem for constraint satisfaction problems on a 3-element set. J. ACM 53, 1 (2006), 66--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andrei Bulatov, Andrei Krokhin, and Peter Jeavons. 2005. Classifying the complexity of constraints using finite algebras. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 3 (2005), 720--742. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andrei A. Bulatov. 2011. Complexity of conservative constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 12, 4 (2011). Article 24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Andrei A. Bulatov, Andrei A. Krokhin, and Peter G. Jeavons. 2001. The complexity of maximal constraint languages. In Proceedings 33rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’01). 667--674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. David A. Cohen, Martin C. Cooper, Páidí Creed, Peter Jeavons, and Stanislav Živný. 2013. An algebraic theory of complexity for discrete optimisation. SIAM J. Comput. 42, 5 (2013), 915--1939.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. David A. Cohen, Martin C. Cooper, Peter G. Jeavons, and Andrei A. Krokhin. 2006. The Complexity of Soft Constraint Satisfaction. Artific. Intell. 170, 11 (2006), 983--1016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tomás Feder and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1998. The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: A study through datalog and group theory. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1 (1998), 57--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Peter Fulla and Stanislav Živný. 2015. A Galois connection of valued constraint languages of infinite size. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’15) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 9134. Springer, 517--528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. David Geiger. 1968. Closed systems of functions and predicates. Pacific J. Math. 27, 1 (1968), 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Pavol Hell and Jaroslav Nešetřil. 1990. On the complexity of H-coloring. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 48, 1 (1990), 92--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Pavol Hell and Jaroslav Nešetřil. 2008. Colouring, constraint satisfaction, and complexity. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2, 3 (2008), 143--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jean-Baptise Hiriart-Urruty and Claude Lemaréchal. 2001. Fundamentals of Convex Analysis. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Peter Jeavons, Andrei Krokhin, and Stanislav Živný. 2014. The complexity of valued constraint satisfaction. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. (EATCS) 113 (2014), 21--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Peter G. Jeavons, David A. Cohen, and Marc Gyssens. 1997. Closure properties of constraints. J. ACM 44, 4 (1997), 527--548. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Vladimir Kolmogorov, Andrei A. Krokhin, and Michal Rolínek. 2015a. The Complexity of General-Valued CSPs. Technical Report. arXiv:1502.07327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Vladimir Kolmogorov, Johan Thapper, and Stanislav Živný. 2015b. The power of linear programming for general-valued CSPs. SIAM J. Comput. 44, 1 (2015), 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Vladimir Kolmogorov and Stanislav Živný. 2013. The complexity of conservative valued CSPs. J. ACM 60, 2 (2013). Article No. 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Marczin Kozik and Joanna Ochremiak. 2015. Algebraic properties of valued constraint satisfaction problem. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’15) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 9134. Springer, 846--858.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Thomas J. Schaefer. 1978. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’78). ACM, 216--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Johan Thapper. 2010. Aspects of a Constraint Optimisation Problem. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science and Information Science, Linköping University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Johan Thapper and Stanislav Živný. 2012. The power of linear programming for valued CSPs. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’12). IEEE, 669--678. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Johan Thapper and Stanislav Živný. 2015a. Necessary conditions on tractability of valued constraint languages. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 29, 4 (2015), 2361--2384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Johan Thapper and Stanislav Živný. 2015b. The complexity of finite-valued CSPs. J. ACM (2015). To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Johan Thapper and Stanislav Živný. 2015c. The power of Sherali-Adams relaxations for valued CSPs. (2015). Submitted for publication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Johan Thapper and Stanislav Živný. 2015d. Sherali-Adams relaxations for valued CSPs. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’15) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hannes Uppman. 2013. The complexity of three-element Min-Sol and conservative Min-Cost-Hom. In Proceedings of the 40th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’13) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 7965. Springer, 804--815. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Andrius Vaicenavičius. 2014. A Study of Weighted Clones. Master’s thesis. Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jiří Vančura. 2014. Weighted Clones. Master’s thesis. Department of Algebra, Charles University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Stanislav Živný. 2012. The Complexity of Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Galois Connection for Weighted (Relational) Clones of Infinite Size

    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!