skip to main content
10.1145/1806689.1806790acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Tractable hypergraph properties for constraint satisfaction and conjunctive queries

Published:05 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

An important question in the study of constraint satisfaction problems (CSP) is understanding how the graph or hypergraph describing the incidence structure of the constraints influences the complexity of the problem. For binary CSP instances (i.e., where each constraint involves only two variables), the situation is well understood: the complexity of the problem essentially depends on the treewidth of the graph of the constraints. However, this is not the correct answer if constraints with unbounded number of variables are allowed, and in particular, for CSP instances arising from query evaluation problems in database theory. Formally, if H is a class of hypergraphs, then let CSP(H) be CSP restricted to instances whose hypergraph is in H. Our goal is to characterize those classes of hypergraphs for which CSP(H) is polynomial-time solvable or fixed-parameter tractable, parameterized by the number of variables. In the applications related to database query evaluation, we usually assume that the number of variables is much smaller than the size of the instance, thus parameterization by the number of variables is a meaningful question. The most general known property of H that makes CSP(H) polynomial-time solvable is bounded fractional hypertree width. Here we introduce a new hypergraph measure called submodular width, and show that bounded submodular width of H (which is a strictly more general property than bounded fractional hypertree width) implies that CSP(H) is fixed-parameter tractable. In a matching hardness result, we show that if H has unbounded submodular width, then CSP(H) is not fixed-parameter tractable (and hence not polynomial-time solvable), unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) fails. The algorithmic result uses tree decompositions in a novel way: instead of using a single decomposition depending on the hypergraph, the instance is split into a set of instances (all on the same set of variables as the original instance), and then the new instances are solved by choosing a different tree decomposition for each of them. The reason why this strategy works is that the splitting can be done in such a way that the new instances are "uniform" with respect to the number extensions of partial solutions, and therefore the number of partial solutions can be described by a submodular function. For the hardness result, we prove via a series of combinatorial results that if a hypergraph H has large submodular width, then a 3SAT instance can be efficiently simulated by a CSP instance whose hypergraph is H. To prove these combinatorial results, we need to develop a theory of (multicommodity) flows on hypergraphs and vertex separators in the case when the function b(S) defining the cost of separator S is submodular.

References

  1. I. Adler. Width functions for hypertree decompositions. PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. I. Adler, G. Gottlob, and M. Grohe. Hypertree width and related hypergraph invariants. European J. Combin., 28(8):2167--2181, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Alon, I. Newman, A. Shen, G. Tardos, and N. Vereshchagin. Partitioning multi-dimensional sets in a small number of "uniform" parts. European J. Combin., 28(1):134--144, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Beeri, R. Fagin, D. Maier, A. O. Mendelzon, J. D. Ullman, and M. Yannakakis. Properties of acyclic database schemes. In STOC, pages 355--362, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Beeri, R. Fagin, D. Maier, and M. Yannakakis. On the desirability of acyclic database schemes. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 30(3):479--513, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In STOC, pages 77--90, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Chekuri and A. Rajaraman. Conjunctive query containment revisited. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 239(2):211--229, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. Chen and M. Grohe. Constraint satisfaction problems with succinctly specified relations, 2006. Manuscript. Preliminary version in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 06401: Complexity of Constraints.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. F. R. K. Chung, R. L. Graham, P. Frankl, and J. B. Shearer. Some intersection theorems for ordered sets and graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 43(1):23--37, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. Parameterized Complexity. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, New York, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. Fagin. Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational database schemes. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 30(3):514--550, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. T. Feder and M. Y. Vardi. The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: a study through Datalog and group theory. SIAM J. Comput., 28(1):57--104, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Flum and M. Grohe. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Springer, Berlin, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. E. C. Freuder. Complexity of k-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of AAAI-90, pages 4--9, Boston, MA, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 64:579--627, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Gottlob, F. Scarcello, and M. Sideri. Fixed-parameter complexity in AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 138(1-2):55--86, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. G. Gottlob and S. Szeider. Fixed-parameter algorithms for artificial intelligence, constraint satisfaction and database problems. The Computer Journal, 51(3):303--325, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Grohe. The structure of tractable constraint satisfaction problems. In MFCS'06, pages 58--72, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Grohe. The complexity of homomorphism and constraint satisfaction problems seen from the other side. J. ACM, 54(1):1, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Grohe and D. Marx. Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. In SODA'06, pages 289--298, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Grohe and D. Marx. On tree width, bramble size, and expansion. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 99(1):218--228, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Impagliazzo, R. Paturi, and F. Zane. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. System Sci., 63(4):512--530, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. P. G. Kolaitis and M. Y. Vardi. Conjunctive-query containment and constraint satisfaction. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 61(2):302--332, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. D. Marx. Can you beat treewidth? To appear in Theory of Computing. Conference version in FOCS 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. Marx. Approximating fractional hypetree width. In SODA'09, pages 902--911, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. D. Marx. Tractable structures for constraint satisfaction with truth tables. In STACS'09, pages 649--660, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. R. Niedermeier. Invitation to fixed-parameter algorithms, volume 31 of Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. S. Oum. Approximating rank-width and clique-width quickly. In WG'05, pages 49--58, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Oum and P. Seymour. Testing branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 97(3):385--393, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. S.-i. Oum and P. Seymour. Approximating clique-width and branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 96(4):514--528, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. F. Scarcello, G. Gottlob, and G. Greco. Uniform constraint satisfaction problems and database theory. In Complexity of Constraints, pages 156--195, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Yannakakis. Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In VLDB, pages 82--94, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Tractable hypergraph properties for constraint satisfaction and conjunctive queries

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      STOC '10: Proceedings of the forty-second ACM symposium on Theory of computing
      June 2010
      812 pages
      ISBN:9781450300506
      DOI:10.1145/1806689

      Copyright © 2010 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 June 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

      Upcoming Conference

      STOC '24
      56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
      June 24 - 28, 2024
      Vancouver , BC , Canada

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader