Abstract
Unlike polynomial kernelization in general, for which many non-trivial results and methods exist, only few non-trival algorithms are known for polynomial-time sparsification. Furthermore, excepting problems on restricted inputs (such as graph problems on planar graphs), most such results rely upon encoding the instance as a system of bounded-degree polynomial equations. In particular, for satisfiability (SAT) problems with a fixed constraint language Γ, every previously known result is captured by this approach; for several such problems, this is known to be tight. In this work, we investigate the limits of this approach—in particular, does it really cover all cases of non-trivial polynomial-time sparsification?
We generalize the method using tools from the algebraic approach to constraint satisfaction problems (CSP). Every constraint that can be modelled via a system of linear equations, over some finite field F, also admits a finite domain extension to a tractable CSP with a Maltsev polymorphism; using known algorithms for Maltsev languages, we can show that every problem of the latter type admits a “basis” of O(n) constraints, which implies a linear sparsification for the original problem. This generalization appears to be strict; other special cases include constraints modelled via group equations over some finite group G. For sparsifications of polynomial but super-linear size, we consider two extensions of this. Most directly, we can capture systems of bounded-degree polynomial equations in a “lift-and-project” manner, by finding Maltsev extensions for constraints over c-tuples of variables, for a basis with O(nc) constraints. Additionally, we may use extensions with k-edge polymorphisms instead of requiring a Maltsev polymorphism.
We also investigate characterizations of when such extensions exist. We give an infinite sequence of partial polymorphisms φ1, φ2, …which characterizes whether a language Γ has a Maltsev extension (of possibly infinite domain). In the complementary direction of proving lower bounds on kernelizability, we prove that for any language not preserved by φ1, the corresponding SAT problem does not admit a kernel of size O(n2−ε) for any ε > 0 unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses.
- L. Barto. 2014. Constraint satisfaction problem and universal algebra. ACM SIGLOG News 1, 2 (Oct. 2014), 14--24.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J. Berman, P. Idziak, P. Marković, R. McKenzie, M. Valeriote, and R. Willard. 2010. Varieties with few subalgebras of powers.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362, 3 (2010), 1445--1473.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- V. G. Bodnarchuk, L. A. Kaluzhnin, V. N. Kotov, and B. A. Romov. 1969. Galois theory for Post algebras. I. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 5, 3(1969), 243--252.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- V. G. Bodnarchuk, L. A. Kaluzhnin, V. N. Kotov, and B. A. Romov. 1969. Galois theory for Post algebras. II. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 5, 5(1969), 531--539.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- E. Böhler, H. Schnoor, S. Reith, and H. Vollmer. 2005. Bases for Boolean co-clones. Inf. Process. Lett. 96, 2 (2005), 59--66.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Bulatov. 2017. A dichotomy theorem for nonuniform CSPs. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS-2017). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 319--330.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- A. Bulatov and V. Dalmau. 2006. A simple algorithm for Mal’tsev constraints. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 1 (2006), 16--27.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Bulatov, P. Jeavons, and A. Krokhin. 2005. Classifying the complexity of constraints using finite algebras. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 3 (March 2005), 720--742.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- A. Bulatov and D. Marx. 2014. Constraint satisfaction parameterized by solution size. SIAM J. Comput. 43, 2 (2014), 573--616.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- S. Burris and H. P. Sankappanavar. 1981. A Course in Universal Algebra. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
- H. Chen, B. M. P. Jansen, and A. Pieterse. 2018. Best-case and worst-case sparsifiability of Boolean CSPs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IPEC-2018) (LIPIcs), Vol. 115. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Oktavie-Allee, 66687 Wadern, Germany, 15:1--15:13.Google Scholar
- N. Creignou and H. Vollmer. 2008. Boolean constraint satisfaction problems: When does Post’s lattice help? In Complexity of Constraints, N. Creignou, P. G. Kolaitis, and H. Vollmer (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5250. Springer Berlin, Germany, 3--37.Google Scholar
- M. Cygan, F. V. Fomin, L. Kowalik, D. Lokshtanov, D. Marx, M. Pilipczuk, M. Pilipczuk, and S. Saurabh. 2015. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- V. Dalmau and P. Jeavons. 2003. Learnability of quantified formulas. Theor. Comput. Sci. 306, 1--3 (2003), 485--511.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- H. Dell and D. van Melkebeek. 2014. Satisfiability allows no nontrivial sparsification unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. J. ACM 61, 4 (2014), 23:1--23:27.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Dyer and D. Richerby. 2013. An effective dichotomy for the counting constraint satisfaction problem. SIAM J. Comput. 42, 3 (2013), 1245--1274.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- T. Feder and M. 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- F. V. Fomin, D. Lokshtanov, S. Saurabh, and M. Zehavi. 2019. Kernelization: Theory of Parameterized Preprocessing. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- D. Geiger. 1968. Closed systems of functions and predicates. Pacific J. Math. 27, 1 (1968), 95--100.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- M. Goldstern and M. Pinsker. 2008. A survey of clones on infinite sets. Algebra Universalis 59, 3 (2008), 365--403.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- W. Hodges. 1997. A Shorter Model Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- P. Idziak, P. Marković, R. McKenzie, M. Valeriote, and R. Willard. 2010. Tractability and learnability arising from algebras with few subpowers. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 7 (June 2010), 3023--3037.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Impagliazzo, R. Paturi, and F. Zane. 2001. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. System Sci. 63 (2001), 512--530. Issue 4.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- B. M. P. Jansen and A. Pieterse. 2016. Optimal sparsification for some binary CSPs using low-degree polynomials. In Proceedings of the 41st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS-2016), Vol. 58. Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Oktavie-Allee, 66687 Wadern, Germany, 71:1--71:14.Google Scholar
- B. M. P. Jansen and A. Pieterse. 2017. Optimal data reduction for graph coloring using low-degree polynomials. In IPEC (LIPIcs), Vol. 89. Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Oktavie-Allee, 66687 Wadern, Germany, 22:1--22:12.Google Scholar
- B. M. P. Jansen and A. Pieterse. 2017. Sparsification upper and lower bounds for graph problems and not-all-equal SAT. Algorithmica 79, 1 (2017), 3--28.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- P. Jeavons. 1998. On the algebraic structure of combinatorial problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200 (1998), 185--204.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- P. Jeavons, D. Cohen, and M. Gyssens. 1995. A unifying framework for tractable constraints. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-1995). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 276--291.Google Scholar
- P. Jonsson, V. Lagerkvist, G. Nordh, and B. Zanuttini. 2017. Strong partial clones and the time complexity of SAT problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 84 (2017), 52--78.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Kratsch, D. Marx, and M. Wahlström. 2016. Parameterized complexity and kernelizability of max ones and exact ones problems. ACM Trans. Comput. Theory 8, 1 (2016), 1.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Kratsch and M. Wahlström. 2010. Preprocessing of min ones problems: A Dichotomy. In Proceedings of the 7th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP-2010) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 6198. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 653--665.Google Scholar
- A. A. Krokhin and D. Marx. 2012. On the hardness of losing weight. ACM Trans. Algorithms 8, 2 (2012), 19.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- V. Lagerkvist and M. Wahlström. 2017. The power of primitive positive definitions with polynomially many variables. J. Logic Comput. 27, 5 (2017), 1465--1488.Google Scholar
- V. Lagerkvist and M. Wahlström. 2018. Which NP-Hard SAT and CSP problems admit exponentially improved algorithms? CoRR abs/1801.09488 (2018). arxiv:1801.09488 http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09488.Google Scholar
- V. Lagerkvist, M. Wahlström, and B. Zanuttini. 2015. Bounded bases of strong partial clones. In Proceedings of the 45th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL-2015). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 189--194.Google Scholar
- D. Marx. 2005. Parameterized complexity of constraint satisfaction problems. Comput. Complexity 14, 2 (2005), 153--183.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. L. Nemhauser and L. E. Trotter. 1975. Vertex packings: Structural properties and algorithms. Math. Program. 8, 1 (1975), 232--248.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- B. A. Romov. 1981. The algebras of partial functions and their invariants. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 17, 2 (1981), 157--167.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- T. Schaefer. 1978. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory Of Computing (STOC-78). ACM, New York, NY, 216--226.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. S. Tseitin. 1983. Automation of Reasoning: 2: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1967--1970. Springer Berlin, Germany, Chapter on the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus, 466--483.Google Scholar
- D. Zhuk. 2017. The proof of CSP dichotomy conjecture. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS-2017). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 331--342.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
Sparsification of SAT and CSP Problems via Tractable Extensions
Recommendations
The (Coarse) Fine-Grained Structure of NP-Hard SAT and CSP Problems
We study the fine-grained complexity of NP-complete satisfiability (SAT) problems and constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) in the context of the strong exponential-time hypothesis(SETH), showing non-trivial lower and upper bounds on the running time. ...
Fine-Grained Time Complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problems
We study the constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) parameterized by a constraint language Γ (CSPΓ) and how the choice of Γ affects its worst-case time complexity. Under the exponential-time hypothesis (ETH), we rule out the existence of subexponential ...
Satisfiability allows no nontrivial sparsification unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses
STOC '10: Proceedings of the forty-second ACM symposium on Theory of computingConsider the following two-player communication process to decide a language L: The first player holds the entire input x but is polynomially bounded; the second player is computationally unbounded but does not know any part of x; their goal is to ...






Comments