skip to main content
research-article

On Existential MSO and Its Relation to ETH

Published:30 September 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Impagliazzo et al. proposed a framework, based on the logic fragment defining the complexity class SNP, to identify problems that are equivalent to k-CNF-Sat modulo subexponential-time reducibility (serf-reducibility). The subexponential-time solvability of any of these problems implies the failure of the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH). In this article, we extend the framework of Impagliazzo et al. and identify a larger set of problems that are equivalent to k-CNF-Sat modulo serf-reducibility. We propose a complexity class, referred to as Linear Monadic NP, that consists of all problems expressible in existential monadic second-order logic whose expressions have a linear measure in terms of a complexity parameter, which is usually the universe size of the problem.

This research direction can be traced back to Fagin’s celebrated theorem stating that NP coincides with the class of problems expressible in existential second-order logic. Monadic NP, a well-studied class in the literature, is the restriction of the aforementioned logic fragment to existential monadic second-order logic. The proposed class Linear Monadic NP is then the restriction of Monadic NP to problems whose expressions have linear measure in the complexity parameter.

We show that Linear Monadic NP includes many natural complete problems such as the satisfiability of linear-size circuits, dominating set, independent dominating set, and perfect code. Therefore, for any of these problems, its subexponential-time solvability is equivalent to the failure of ETH. We prove, using logic games, that the aforementioned problems are inexpressible in the monadic fragment of SNP, and hence, are not captured by the framework of Impagliazzo et al. Finally, we show that Feedback Vertex Set is inexpressible in existential monadic second-order logic, and hence is not in Linear Monadic NP, and investigate the existence of certain reductions between Feedback Vertex Set (and variants of it) and 3-CNF-Sat.

References

  1. Amir Abboud, Arturs Backurs, and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2015. Tight hardness results for LCS and other sequence similarity measures. In Proceedings of the IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’15). 59--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Miklós Ajtai and Ronald Fagin. 1990. Reachability is harder for directed than for undirected finite graphs. J. Symb. Log. 55, 1 (1990), 113--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Miklós Ajtai, Ronald Fagin, and Larry J. Stockmeyer. 2000. The closure of monadic NP. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 60, 3 (2000), 660--716.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sanjeev Arora and Ronald Fagin. 1997. On winning strategies in Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games. Theor. Comput. Sci. 174, 1--2 (1997), 97--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Arturs Backurs and Piotr Indyk. 2015. Edit distance cannot be computed in strongly subquadratic time (unless SETH is false). In Proceedings of the 47th Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’15). 51--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Karl Bringmann. 2014. Why walking the dog takes time: Frechet distance has no strongly subquadratic algorithms unless SETH fails. In Proceedings of the 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’14). 661--670.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Karl Bringmann and Marvin Künnemann. 2015. Quadratic conditional lower bounds for string problems and dynamic time warping. In Proceedings of the IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’15). 79--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Rowland L. Brooks. 1941. On colouring the nodes of a network. Math. Proc. Cambr. Philos. Soc. 37, 2 (4 1941), 194--197. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500410002168XGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chris Calabro, Russell Impagliazzo, and Ramamohan Paturi. 2006. A duality between clause width and clause density for SAT. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’06). IEEE Computer Society, 252--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Karthekeyan Chandrasekaran, Richard M. Karp, Erick Moreno-Centeno, and Santosh Vempala. 2011. Algorithms for implicit hitting set problems. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’11). SIAM, 614--629.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jianer Chen, Benny Chor, Mike Fellows, Xiuzhen Huang, David Juedes, Iyad Kanj, and Ge Xia. 2005. Tight lower bounds for certain parameterized NP-hard problems. Inf. Comput. 201, 2 (2005), 216--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jianer Chen, Xiuzhen Huang, Iyad Kanj, and Ge Xia. 2006. Strong computational lower bounds via parameterized complexity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 72, 8 (2006), 1346--1367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jianer Chen, Iyad Kanj, and Ge Xia. 2009. On parameterized exponential time complexity. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410, 27--29 (2009), 2641--2648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Bruno Courcelle. 2000. Graph operations and monadic second-order logic: A survey. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’00). Springer Verlag, 20--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Bruno Courcelle and Joost Engelfriet. 2012. Graph Structure and Monadic Second-order Logic: A Language-theoretic Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Margaret B. Cozzens and Laura L. Kelleher. 1990. Dominating cliques in graphs. Disc. Math. 86, 1--3 (1990), 101--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Paul Cull and Ingrid Nelson. 1999. Error-correcting codes on the towers of Hanoi graphs. Disc. Math. 208--209 (1999), 157--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Alexander Golovnev, Alexander S. Kulikov, Ivan Mihajlin, Jakub Pachocki, and Arkadiusz Socala. 2016. Tight bounds for graph homomorphism and subgraph isomorphism. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’16). 1643--1649.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Lukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michal Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. 2015. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Evgeny Dantsin, Andreas Goerdt, Edward A. Hirsch, Ravi Kannan, Jon M. Kleinberg, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Uwe Schöning. 2002. A deterministic k algorithm for -SAT based on local search. Theor. Comput. Sci. 289, 1 (2002), 69--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Evgeny Dantsin and Alexander Wolpert. 2010. On moderately exponential time for SAT. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing SAT’10). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 6175. Springer, 313--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Holger Dell and Dieter van Melkebeek. 2010. Satisfiability allows no nontrivial sparsification unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’10). ACM, New York, 251--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. 1999. Parameterized Complexity. Springer Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. Fagin. 1974. Generalized first-order spectra, and polynomial time recognizable sets. SIAM-AMS Proc. 7 (1974), 43--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ronald Fagin. 1975. Monadic generalized spectra. Math. Log. Q. 21, 1 (1975), 89--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Ronald Fagin. 1994. Comparing the power of monadic NP games. In Proceedings of the International Logic and Computational Complexity Workshop (LCC’94). Selected Papers. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Daniel Leivant (Ed.), Vol. 960. Springer, 414--425.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ronald Fagin, Larry J. Stockmeyer, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1995. On monadic NP vs. monadic co-NP. Inf. Comput. 120, 1 (1995), 78--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jörg Flum and Martin Grohe. 2004. Parameterized complexity and subexponential time. Bull. Euro. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 84 (2004), 71--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jörg Flum and Martin Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, Vol. XIV. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Fedor V. Fomin, Serge Gaspers, Artem V. Pyatkin, and Igor Razgon. 2008. On the minimum feedback vertex set problem: Exact and enumeration algorithms. Algorithmica 52, 2 (2008), 293--307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. F. V. Fomin and D. Kratsch. 2010. Exact Exponential Algorithms. Springer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Michael R. Garey and David R. Johnson. 1979. Computers and Intractability. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, San Francisco.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Adriana Hansberg, Dirk Meierling, and Lutz Volkmann. 2007. Distance domination and distance irredundance in graphs. Electr. J. Comb. 14, 1 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Neil Immerman. 1999. Descriptive Complexity. Springer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. 2001. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 4 (2001), 512--530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. David Janin and Jerzy Marcinkowski. 2001. A toolkit for first order extensions of monadic games. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 2010. Springer, 353--364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. D. Johnson and M. Szegedy. 1999. What are the least tractable instances of max. independent set? In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’99). 927--928.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Iyad Kanj and Stefan Szeider. 2015. Parameterized and subexponential-time complexity of satisfiability problems and applications. Theor. Comput. Sci. 607 (2015), 282--295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Martin Kreidler and Detlef Seese. 1998. Monadic NP and graph minors. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 1584. Springer, 126--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonid Libkin. 2004. Elements of Finite Model Theory. Springer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Daniel Lokshtanov. 2015. Personal communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, and Saket Saurabh. 2011. Lower bounds based on the exponential time hypothesis. Bull. Euro. Assoc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 105 (2011), 41--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Dániel Marx. 2010. Can you beat treewidth? Theor. Comput. 6 (2010), 85--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Christos H. Papadimitriou and Mihalis Yannakakis. 1991. Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 43, 3 (1991), 425--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Elena Pezzoli. 1998. Computational complexity of Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games on finite structures. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic (CSL’98). 159--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Sheung-Hung Poon, William Chung-Kung Yen, and Chin-Ting Ung. 2012. Domatic partition on several classes of graphs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Combinatorial Optimization and Applications. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 7402. Springer, 245--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Thomas Schwentick. 1996. On winning Ehrenfeucht games and monadic NP. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 79, 1 (1996), 61--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Carsten Sinz. 2005. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’05). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Peter van Beek (Ed.), Vol. 3709. Springer Verlag, 827--831.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On Existential MSO and Its Relation to ETH

    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

    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    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!