skip to main content
research-article

Tractable Hypergraph Properties for Constraint Satisfaction and Conjunctive Queries

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 November 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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 (that is, 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 [Grohe 2007; Marx 2010b]. 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. Note that 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, which can be of independent interest.

References

  1. Isolde Adler. 2006. Width functions for hypertree decompositions. Ph.D. dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Isolde Adler, Georg Gottlob, and Martin Grohe. 2007. Hypertree width and related hypergraph invariants. Euro. J. Combin. 28, 8, 2167--2181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Amit Agarwal, Noga Alon, and Moses Charikar. 2007. Improved approximation for directed cut problems. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’07). ACM, New York, 671--680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Noga Alon, Ilan Newman, Alexander Shen, Gábor Tardos, and Nikolai Vereshchagin. 2007. Partitioning multi-dimensional sets in a small number of “uniform” parts. Euro. J. Combin. 28, 1, 134--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Omid Amini, Frédéric Mazoit, Nicolas Nisse, and Stéphan Thomassé. 2009. Submodular partition functions. Discr. Math. 309, 20, 6000--6008. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/DOI:10.1016/j.disc.2009.04.033.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Alexandr Andoni, Piotr Indyk, and Mihai Patrascu. 2006. On the optimality of the dimensionality reduction method. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 449--458. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2006.56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Albert Atserias, Andrei A. Bulatov, and Víctor Dalmau. 2007. On the power of k-consistency. In Proceedings of ICALP. 279--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Catriel Beeri, Ronald Fagin, David Maier, Alberto O. Mendelzon, Jeffrey D. Ullman, and Mihalis Yannakakis. 1981. Properties of acyclic database schemes. In Proceedings of STOC. 355--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Catriel Beeri, Ronald Fagin, David Maier, and Mihalis Yannakakis. 1983. On the desirability of acyclic database schemes. J. ACM 30, 3, 479--513. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Andrei A. Bulatov. 2006. A dichotomy theorem for constraint satisfaction problems on a 3-element set. J. ACM 53, 1, 66--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Andrei A. Bulatov. 2011. Complexity of conservative constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 12, 4, Article 24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. A. Bulatov, A. A. Krokhin, and P. Jeavons. 2001. The complexity of maximal constraint languages. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 667--674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ashok K. Chandra and Philip M. Merlin. 1977. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Proceedings of STOC. 77--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chandra Chekuri and Anand Rajaraman. 2000. Conjunctive query containment revisited. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 239, 2, 211--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hubie Chen and Martin Grohe. 2010. Constraint satisfaction with succinctly specified relations. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 76, 8, 847--860. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. F. R. K. Chung, R. L. Graham, P. Frankl, and J. B. Shearer. 1986. Some intersection theorems for ordered sets and graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 43, 1, 23--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Víctor Dalmau, Phokion G. Kolaitis, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2002. Constraint satisfaction, bounded treewidth, and finite-variable logics. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’02). Springer-Verlag, 310--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. 1999. Parameterized Complexity. Springer, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ronald Fagin. 1983. Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational database schemes. J. ACM 30, 3, 514--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Tomás Feder and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1999. The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: A study through Datalog and group theory. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1, 57--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jörg Flum and Martin Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. E. C. Freuder. 1990. Complexity of k-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of AAAI-90. 4--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. G. Gottlob and S. Szeider. 2008. Fixed-parameter algorithms for artificial intelligence, constraint satisfaction and database problems. Comput. J. 51, 3, 303--325. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. 2002a. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. J. Comput. System Sci. 64, 579--627.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Georg Gottlob, Francesco Scarcello, and Martha Sideri. 2002b. Fixed-parameter complexity in AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 138, 1--2, 55--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Gianluigi Greco and Francesco Scarcello. 2010. The power of tree projections: Local consistency, greedy algorithms, and larger islands of tractability. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’10). ACM, New York, 327--338. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1807085.1807127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Martin Grohe. 2006. The structure of tractable constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of MFCS’06. 58--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Martin Grohe. 2007. The complexity of homomorphism and constraint satisfaction problems seen from the other side. J. ACM 54, 1, 1. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1206035.1206036. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Martin Grohe and Dániel Marx. 2009. On tree width, bramble size, and expansion. J. Combinat. Theory Ser. B 99, 1, 218--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Martin Grohe and Dániel Marx. 2012+. Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. (2012+). To appear. ACM Trans. Algor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Anupam Gupta. 2003. Improved results for directed multicut. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM, New York, 454--455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi and Harald Räcke. 2006. An O(√n)-approximation algorithm for directed sparsest cut. Inform. Process. Lett. 97, 4, 156--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Petr Hliněný. 2005. A parametrized algorithm for matroid branch-width. SIAM J. Comput. 35, 2, 259--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Petr Hliněný and Sang-il Oum. 2008. Finding branch-decompositions and rank-decompositions. SIAM J. Comput. 38, 3, 1012--1032. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Petr Hliněný and Geoff Whittle. 2006. Matroid tree-width. European J. Combin. 27, 7, 1117--1128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. 2001. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. System Sci. 63, 4, 512--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Satoru Iwata. 2008. Submodular function minimization. Math. Program. 112, 1, Ser. B, 45--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Satoru Iwata, Lisa Fleischer, and Satoru Fujishige. 2001. A combinatorial strongly polynomial algorithm for minimizing submodular functions. J. ACM 48, 4, 761--777. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. P. Jeavons, D. A. Cohen, and M. Gyssens. 1997. Closure properties of constraints. J. ACM 44, 4, 527--548. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Phokion G. Kolaitis and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2000a. Conjunctive-query containment and constraint satisfaction. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 61, 2, 302--332. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1713. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Phokion G. Kolaitis and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2000b. A game-theoretic approach to constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI. 175--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Dániel Marx. 2007. On the optimality of planar and geometric approximation schemes. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’07). 338--348. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Dániel Marx. 2010a. Approximating fractional hypertree width. ACM Trans. Algor. 6, 2, 1--17. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1721837.1721845. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Dániel Marx. 2010b. Can You Beat Treewidth? Theory Comput. 6, 1, 85--112. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.4086/toc.2010.v006a005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Dániel Marx. 2010c. Tractable hypergraph properties for constraint satisfaction and conjunctive queries. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 735--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Dániel Marx. 2011. Tractable structures for constraint satisfaction with truth tables. Theory Comput. Syst. 48, 444--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Rolf Niedermeier. 2006. Invitation to Fixed-Parameter Algorithms. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 31, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Sang-il Oum. 2005. Approximating rank-width and clique-width quickly. In Proceedings of the 31st International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science. 49--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Sang-il Oum and Paul Seymour. 2006. Approximating clique-width and branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96, 4, 514--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Sang-il Oum and Paul Seymour. 2007. Testing branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 97, 3, 385--393. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Mihai Pǎtraşcu and Ryan Williams. 2010. On the possibility of faster SAT algorithms. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM/SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 1065--1075. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Francesco Scarcello, Georg Gottlob, and Gianluigi Greco. 2008. Uniform constraint satisfaction problems and database theory. In Complexity of Constraints, 156--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Thomas J. Schaefer. 1978. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Conference Record of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 216--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Alexander Schrijver. 2000. A combinatorial algorithm minimizing submodular functions in strongly polynomial time. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 80, 2, 346--355. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Mihalis Yannakakis. 1981. Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In Proceedings of VLDB. 82--94. 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

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Journal of the ACM
            Journal of the ACM  Volume 60, Issue 6
            November 2013
            239 pages
            ISSN:0004-5411
            EISSN:1557-735X
            DOI:10.1145/2555516
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2013 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 the author(s) 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: 1 November 2013
            • Accepted: 1 August 2013
            • Revised: 1 March 2013
            • Received: 1 December 2011
            Published in jacm Volume 60, Issue 6

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader