skip to main content
research-article

The Complexity of Promise SAT on Non-Boolean Domains

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 September 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

While 3-SAT is NP-hard, 2-SAT is solvable in polynomial time. Austrin et al. [SICOMP’17] proved a result known as “(2+ɛ)-SAT is NP-hard.” They showed that the problem of distinguishing k-CNF formulas that are g-satisfiable (i.e., some assignment satisfies at least g literals in every clause) from those that are not even 1-satisfiable is NP-hard if g/k < 1/2 and is in P otherwise. We study a generalisation of SAT on arbitrary finite domains, with clauses that are disjunctions of unary constraints, and establish analogous behaviour. Thus, we give a dichotomy for a natural fragment of promise constraint satisfaction problems (PCSPs) on arbitrary finite domains.

The hardness side is proved using the algebraic approach via a new general NP-hardness criterion on polymorphisms, which is based on a gap version of the Layered Label Cover problem. We show that previously used criteria are insufficient—the problem hence gives an interesting benchmark of algebraic techniques for proving hardness of approximation in problems such as PCSPs.

References

  1. Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. 2009. Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. 1998. Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. J. ACM 45, 3 (1998), 501–555. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/278298.278306Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra. 1998. Probabilistic checking of proofs: A new characterization of NP. J. ACM 45, 1 (1998), 70–122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/273865.273901Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Per Austrin, Amey Bhangale, and Aditya Potukuchi. 2020. Improved inapproximability of rainbow coloring. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’20). SIAM, 1479–1495. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.90arXiv:1810.02784Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Per Austrin, Venkatesan Guruswami, and Johan Håstad. 2017. (2+)-SAT Is NP-hard. SIAM J. Comput. 46, 5 (2017), 1554–1573. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/15M1006507arXiv:2013/159Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Libor Barto, Jakub Bulín, Andrei A. Krokhin, and Jakub Opršal. 2019. Algebraic approach to promise constraint satisfaction. arXiv:1811.00970. Retrieved June 21, 2019 from https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Libor Barto, Andrei Krokhin, and Ross Willard. 2017. Polymorphisms, and how to use them. In Complexity and Approximability of Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Andrei Krokhin and Stanislav Živný (Eds.). Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, Vol. 7. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 1–44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/DFU.Vol7.15301.iGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Joshua Brakensiek and Venkatesan Guruswami. 2016. New hardness results for graph and hypergraph colorings. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’ 16) (LIPIcs), Vol. 50. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 14:1–14:27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2016.14arXiv:2016/029Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Joshua Brakensiek and Venkatesan Guruswami. 2018. Promise constraint satisfaction: Structure theory and a symmetric boolean dichotomy. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’18). SIAM, 1782–1801. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975031.117Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Joshua Brakensiek and Venkatesan Guruswami. 2019. An algorithmic blend of LPs and ring equations for promise CSPs. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’19). SIAM, 436–455. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975482.28arXiv:1807.05194Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Joshua Brakensiek and Venkatesan Guruswami. 2020. Symmetric polymorphisms and efficient decidability of PCSPs. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’20). SIAM, 297–304. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.18arXiv:1907.04383Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Alex Brandts, Marcin Wrochna, and Stanislav Živný. 2020. The complexity of promise SAT on non-Boolean domains. In Proceedings of the 47th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’20), Vol. 168. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 17:1–17:13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2020.17arXiv:1911.09065Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jakub Bulín, Andrei A. Krokhin, and Jakub Opršal. 2019. Algebraic approach to promise constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC’19). ACM, 602–613. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316300Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hubie Chen and Martin Grohe. 2010. Constraint satisfaction with succinctly specified relations. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 76, 8 (2010), 847–860. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2010.04.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stephen Cook. 1971. The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’71). 151–158. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/800157.805047Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Irit Dinur, Venkatesan Guruswami, Subhash Khot, and Oded Regev. 2005. A new multilayered PCP and the hardness of hypergraph vertex cover. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 5 (2005), 1129–1146. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704443057Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Irit Dinur, Oded Regev, and Clifford D. Smyth. 2005. The hardness of 3-Uniform hypergraph coloring. Combinatorica 25, 5 (2005), 519–535. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00493-005-0032-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Miron Ficak, Marcin Kozik, Miroslav Olšák, and Szymon Stankiewicz. 2019. Dichotomy for symmetric boolean PCSPs. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’19), Vol. 132. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 57:1–57:12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.57arXiv:1904.12424Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. R. Garey and David S. Johnson. 1976. The complexity of near-optimal graph coloring. J. ACM 23, 1 (1976), 43–49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/321921.321926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Àngel J. Gil, Miki Hermann, Gernot Salzer, and Bruno Zanuttini. 2008. Efficient algorithms for description problems over finite totally ordered domains. SIAM J. Comput. 38, 3 (2008), 922–945. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/050635900Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Venkatesan Guruswami and Euiwoong Lee. 2018. Strong inapproximability results on balanced rainbow-colorable hypergraphs. Combinatorica 38, 3 (2018), 547–599. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00493-016-3383-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Venkatesan Guruswami and Sai Sandeep. 2020. Rainbow coloring hardness via low sensitivity polymorphisms. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 34, 1 (2020), 520–537. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/19M127731XarXiv:2019/094Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Subhash Khot. 2002. Hardness results for coloring 3-Colorable 3-Uniform hypergraphs. In Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’02). IEEE Computer Society, 23–32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2002.1181879Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Andrei Krokhin and Jakub Opršal. 2019. The complexity of 3-colouring -colourable graphs. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’19). IEEE, 1227–1239. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2019.00076arXiv:1904.03214Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Melven Krom. 1967. The decision problem for a class of first-order formulas in which all disjunctions are binary. Z. Math. Logik Grund. Math. 13 (1967), 15–20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.19670130104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Leonid Levin. 1973. Universal search problems (in Russian). Probl. Inf. Transm. (in Russian) 9, 3 (1973), 115–116. http://www.mathnet.ru/links/84e4c96b64cc22a33a4bdae3d4815887/ppi914.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1991. On selecting a satisfying truth assignment. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’91). IEEE Computer Society, 163–169. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1991.185365Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ran Raz. 1998. A parallel repetition theorem. SIAM J. Comput. 27, 3 (1998), 763–803. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795280895Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Complexity of Promise SAT on Non-Boolean Domains

      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!