skip to main content
research-article

Sparsification of SAT and CSP Problems via Tractable Extensions

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 April 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. L. Barto. 2014. Constraint satisfaction problem and universal algebra. ACM SIGLOG News 1, 2 (Oct. 2014), 14--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. E. Böhler, H. Schnoor, S. Reith, and H. Vollmer. 2005. Bases for Boolean co-clones. Inf. Process. Lett. 96, 2 (2005), 59--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. A. Bulatov and V. Dalmau. 2006. A simple algorithm for Mal’tsev constraints. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 1 (2006), 16--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Bulatov and D. Marx. 2014. Constraint satisfaction parameterized by solution size. SIAM J. Comput. 43, 2 (2014), 573--616.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. S. Burris and H. P. Sankappanavar. 1981. A Course in Universal Algebra. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. V. Dalmau and P. Jeavons. 2003. Learnability of quantified formulas. Theor. Comput. Sci. 306, 1--3 (2003), 485--511.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Dyer and D. Richerby. 2013. An effective dichotomy for the counting constraint satisfaction problem. SIAM J. Comput. 42, 3 (2013), 1245--1274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. F. V. Fomin, D. Lokshtanov, S. Saurabh, and M. Zehavi. 2019. Kernelization: Theory of Parameterized Preprocessing. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Geiger. 1968. Closed systems of functions and predicates. Pacific J. Math. 27, 1 (1968), 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. M. Goldstern and M. Pinsker. 2008. A survey of clones on infinite sets. Algebra Universalis 59, 3 (2008), 365--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. W. Hodges. 1997. A Shorter Model Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Jeavons. 1998. On the algebraic structure of combinatorial problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 200 (1998), 185--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. A. Krokhin and D. Marx. 2012. On the hardness of losing weight. ACM Trans. Algorithms 8, 2 (2012), 19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. D. Marx. 2005. Parameterized complexity of constraint satisfaction problems. Comput. Complexity 14, 2 (2005), 153--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. G. L. Nemhauser and L. E. Trotter. 1975. Vertex packings: Structural properties and algorithms. Math. Program. 8, 1 (1975), 232--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. B. A. Romov. 1981. The algebras of partial functions and their invariants. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 17, 2 (1981), 157--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Sparsification of SAT and CSP Problems via Tractable Extensions

      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

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

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

      Learn more

      Got it!