skip to main content
research-article

Fine-Grained Time Complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Published:21 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

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 algorithms for finite-domain NP-complete CSPΓ problems. This extends to certain infinite-domain CSPs and structurally restricted problems. For CSPs with finite domain D and where all unary relations are available, we identify a relation SD such that the time complexity of the NP-complete problem CSP({SD}) is a lower bound for all NP-complete CSPs of this kind. We also prove that the time complexity of CSP({SD}) strictly decreases when |D| increases (unless the ETH is false) and provide stronger complexity results in the special case when |D|=3.

References

  1. V. B. Alekseev and A. A. Voronenko. 1994. On some closed classes in partial two-valued logic. Discrete Mathematics and Applications 4, 5 (1994), 401--419Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. L. Barto. 2014. The constraint satisfaction problem and universal algebra. ACM SIGLOG News 1, 2 (Oct. 2014), 14--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L. Barto and M. Pinsker. 2016. The algebraic dichotomy conjecture for infinite domain constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’16). ACM, New York, NY, 615--622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Behrisch, M. Hermann, S. Mengel, and G. Salzer. 2019. Minimal distance of propositional models. Theory of Computing Systems 63, 6 (Aug. 2019), 1131--1184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Bodirsky. 2012. Complexity classification in infinite-domain constraint satisfaction. Mémoire d’habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Diderot -- Paris 7. Available at arXiv:1201.0856.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Bodirsky, P. Jonsson, and T. V. Pham. 2017. The complexity of phylogeny constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 18, 3 (2017), 23:1--23:42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Bodirsky and J. Kára. 2008. The complexity of equality constraint languages. Theory of Computing Systems 43, 2 (Aug. 2008), 136--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. M. Bodirsky and J. Kára. 2010. The complexity of temporal constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of the ACM 57, 2, Article 9 (2010), 41 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Bodirsky and M. Pinsker. 2015. Schaefer’s theorem for graphs. Journal of the ACM 62, 3, Article 19 (June 2015), 52 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. V. G. Bodnarchuk, L. A. Kaluzhnin, V. N. Kotov, and B. A. Romov. 1969. Galois theory for Post algebras. I. Cybernetics 5, 3 (1969), 243--252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. V. G. Bodnarchuk, L. A. Kaluzhnin, V. N. Kotov, and B. A. Romov. 1969. Galois theory for Post algebras. II. Cybernetics 5, 5 (1969), 531--539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. E. Böhler, E. Hemaspaandra, S. Reith, and H. Vollmer. 2002. Equivalence and isomorphism for Boolean constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic (CSL’02). Springer Berlin, Berlin, 412--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. F. Börner. 2008. Basics of Galois connections. In Complexity of Constraints, N. Creignou, P. G. Kolaitis, and H. Vollmer (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5250. Springer Berlin, 38--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Bulatov. 2011. Complexity of conservative constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 12, 4, Article 24 (July 2011), 66 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Bulatov. 2017. A dichotomy theorem for nonuniform CSPs. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). IEEE Computer Society, 319--330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. Bulatov and A. Hedayaty. 2012. Counting problems and clones of functions. Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing 18, 2 (2012), 117--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. Bulatov, P. Jeavons, and A. Krokhin. 2005. Classifying the complexity of constraints using finite algebras. SIAM Journal on Computing 34, 3 (March 2005), 720--742. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Calabro, R. Impagliazzo, and R. Paturi. 2009. The complexity of satisfiability of small depth circuits. In Parameterized and Exact Computation, J. Chen and F. V. Fomin (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5917. Springer Berlin, 75--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. Carbonnel and M. C. Cooper. 2016. Tractability in constraint satisfaction problems: a survey. Constraints 21, 2 (Apr. 2016), 115--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. C. Cooper and S. Zǐvný. 2017. Hybrid tractable classes of constraint problems. In The Constraint Satisfaction Problem: Complexity and Approximability, Andrei Krokhin and Stanislav Zǐvný (Eds.). Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, Vol. 7. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 113--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. N. Creignou, U. Egly, and J. Schmidt. 2014. Complexity Classifications for Logic-Based Argumentation. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 15, 3 (2014), 19:1--19:20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Cygan, F. V. Fomin, A. Golovnev, A. S. Kulikov, I. Mihajlin, J. Pachocki, and A. Socała. 2016. Tight bounds for graph homomorphism and subgraph isomorphism. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’16). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 1643--1649. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. de Haan, I. A. Kanj, and S. Szeider. 2015. On the subexponential-time complexity of CSP. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 52 (2015), 203--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. T. Feder and M. Y. Vardi. 1998. The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: A study through datalog and group theory. SIAM Journal on Computing 28, 1 (1998), 57--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. V. Freivald. 1966. A completeness criterion for partial functions of logic and many-valued logic algebras. Soviet Physics Doklady 11 (Oct. 1966), 288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. D. Geiger. 1968. Closed systems of functions and predicates. Pacific Journal on Mathematics 27, 1 (1968), 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. M. Grohe. 2006. The structure of tractable constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’06). Springer Berlin, Berlin,58--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. L. Ham. 2017. Gap theorems for robust satisfiability: Boolean CSPs and beyond. Theoretical Computer Science 676 (2017), 69--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. T. Hertli. 2014. 3-SAT faster and simpler - Unique-SAT bounds for PPSZ hold in general. SIAM Journal on Computing 43, 2 (2014), 718--729.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R. Impagliazzo and R. Paturi. 2001. On the complexity of k-SAT. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 62, 2 (2001), 367--375. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. R. Impagliazzo, R. Paturi, and F. Zane. 2001. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity?Journal of Computer and System Sciences 63, 4 (2001), 512--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. P. Jeavons. 1998. On the algebraic structure of combinatorial problems. Theoretical Computer Science 200 (1998), 185--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. P. Jeavons, D. A. Cohen, and M. Gyssens. 1999. How to determine the expressive power of constraints. Constraints 4, 2 (1999), 113--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. P. Jonsson and V. Lagerkvist. 2017. An initial study of time complexity in infinite-domain constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 245 (2017), 115--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. P. Jonsson, V. Lagerkvist, G. Nordh, and B. Zanuttini. 2017. Strong partial clones and the time complexity of SAT problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 84 (2017), 52--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. V. Lagerkvist. 2015. Precise upper and lower bounds for the monotone constraint satisfaction problem. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’15). Springer Berlin, Berlin, 357--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. R. Pöschel. 2004. Galois connections for operations and relations. In Galois Connections and Applications, K. Denecke, M. Erné, and S.L. Wismath (Eds.). Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 565. Springer Netherlands, 231--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. E. Post. 1941. The two-valued iterative systems of mathematical logic. Annals of Mathematical Studies 5 (1941), 1--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. B. A. Romov. 1981. The algebras of partial functions and their invariants. Cybernetics 17, 2 (1981), 157--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. B. A. Romov. 2006. The completeness problem in partial hyperclones. Discrete Mathematics 306, 13 (July 2006), 1405--1414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. F. Rossi, P. van Beek, and T. Walsh (Eds.). 2006. Handbook of Constraint Programming. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. S. J. Russell and P. Norvig. 2010. Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach (3rd internat. ed.). Pearson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. T. Schaefer. 1978. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory Of Computing (STOC’78). ACM Press, 216--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. H. Schnoor and I. Schnoor. 2008. Partial polymorphisms and constraint satisfaction problems. In Complexity of Constraints, N. Creignou, P. G. Kolaitis, and H. Vollmer (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5250. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 229--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. K. Schölzel. 2015. Dichotomy on intervals of strong partial Boolean clones. Algebra Universalis 73, 3--4 (2015), 347--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. M. Wahlström. 2007. Algorithms, Measures and Upper Bounds for Satisfiability and Related Problems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. D. Zhuk. 2017. The proof of CSP dichotomy conjecture. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). IEEE Computer Society, 331--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Fine-Grained Time Complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problems

          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!