skip to main content
10.1145/375551.375579acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Robbers, marshals, and guards: game theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 May 2001Publication History

ABSTRACT

In a previous paper [10], the authors introduced the notion of hypertree decomposition and the corresponding concept of hypertree width and showed that the conjunctive queries whose hypergraphs have bounded hypertree-width can be evaluated in polynomial time. Bounded hypertree-width generalizes the notions of acyclicity and bounded treewidth and corresponds to larger classes of tractable queries. In the present paper, we provide natural characterizations of hypergraphs and queries having bounded hypertree-width in terms of game-theory and logic.

First we define the Robber and Marshals game, and prove that a hypergraph H has hypertree-width at most k iff k marshals have a winning strategy on H, allowing them to trap a robber who moves along the hyperedges. This game is akin the well-known Robber and Cops game (which characterizes bounded treewidth), except that marshals are more powerful than cops: They can control entire hyperedges instead of just vertices.

Kolaitis and Vardi [17] recently gave an elegant characterization of the conjunctive queries having treewidth < k in terms of the k-variable fragment of a certain logic L ( = existential-conjunctive fragment of positive FO). We use the Robber and Marshals game to derive a surprisingly simple and equally elegant characterization of the class HW[k] of queries of hypertree-width at most k in terms of guarded logic. In particular, we show that HW[k] = GFk (L), where GFk(L) denotes the k-guarded fragment of L. In this fragment, conjunctions of k atoms rather than just single atoms are allowed to act as guards. Note that, for the particular case k = 1, our results provide new characterizations of the class of acyclic queries.

We extend the notion of bounded hypertreewidth to nonrecursive stratified datalog and show that the k-guarded fragment GFk(FO) of first order logic has the same expressive power as nonrecursive stratified datalog of hypertreewidth ⪇ k.

References

  1. 1.S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.S. Abiteboul and O.M. Duschka. Complexity of Answering Queries Using Materialized Views. In Proc. of PODS'98, Seattle, Washington, pp. 254-263, 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.J. Van Benthem. Dynamic Bits and Pieces. ILLC Research Report, University of Amsterdam, 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.A.K. Chandra and P.M. Merlin. Optimal Implementation of Conjunctive Queries in relational Databases. In ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC'77), pp.77-90, 1977.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Ch. Chekuri and A. Rajaraman. Conjunctive Query Containment Revisited. Theoretical Computer Science, 239(2):211-229, 2000. A preliminary version appeared in Proe. of ICDT:97, Springer LNCS, Vol. 1186, pp.56-70, 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.B.Courcelle: Monadic second-order logic of graphs VII: Graphs as relational structures, in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol 101, pp. 3-33 (1992).]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.R. Dechter and J. Pearl. Tree clustering for constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 38:353-366, 1989.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.J. Flum, M. Frick: and M. Grohe. Query Evaluation via Tree-Decomposition. In Proe. of ICDT:01, Springer LNCS, Vol. 1973: pp.22-38, 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. The Complexity of Acyclic Conjunctive Queries. To appear in Journal of the ACM. An extended abstract concerning part of this work has been published in Proe. of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'98), pp.706-715, Palo Alto, CA, 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. Hypertree Decompositions and Tractable Queries. To appear in Journal of Computer and System Sciences. An extended abstract concerning part of this work has been published in Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'99), pp. 21-32, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11.G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. A Comparison of Structural CSP Decomposition Methods. Artificial Intelligence, 124(2):243-282, 2000. A preliminary version appeared in Proe. of IJCAF99, Vol.1, pp. 394-399, 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12.G. Gottlob, E. Gradel, H. Veith. Datalog LITE: A Deductive Query Language with Linear Time Model Checking. To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13.G. Gottlob and R. Pichler. Hypergraphs in Model Checking: Acyclicity and Hypertree-Width versus Clique-Width. Maunuscript, submitted for publication. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.E. Gradel. On the Restraining Power of Guards. Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 64,pp. 1719-1742, 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. 15.M. Grohe, T. Schwentick, and L. Segoufin. When is the Evaluation of Conjunctive Queries Tractable? To appear in Proc. ACM STOCk01, 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 16.M. Gyssens, P.G. Jeavons, and D.A. Cohen. Decomposing constraint satisfaction problems using database techniques. Artificial Intelligence, 66:57-89, 1994.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17.Ph. G. Kolaitis and M. Y. Vardi. Conjunctive-Query Containment and Constraint Satisfaction. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 61:302-332, 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.A. Lustig and O. Shmueli. Acyclic Hypergraph Projections. J. of Algorithms, 30:400-422, 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.N. Robertson and P.D. Seymour. Graph Minors II. Algorithmic Aspects of Tree-Width. J. Algorithms, 7:309-322, 1986.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.P.D. Seymour and R. Thomas. Graph Searching and a Min-Max Theorem for Tree-Width. J. of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 58:22-33, 1993.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.J.D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge Base Systems, Vol II, Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD, 1989.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22.J.D. Ullman. Information integration using logical views. Theoretical Computer Science, 239(2):189-210, 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23.M. Vardi. Complexity of Relational Query Languages. In Proe. of 14th ACM STOC, pp. 137-146, 1982.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 24.M. Vardi. Constraint Satisfaction and Database Theory. Tutorial at PODS'00. Currently available at: www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/papers/pods00t, ps. gz.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25.E. Wanke. Bounded Tree-Width and LOGCFL. Journal of Algorithms, 16:470-491, 1994.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26.M. Yannakakis. Algorithms for Acyclic Database Schemes. In Proe. of Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB'81), pp. 82-94, C. Zaniolo and C. Delobel Eds., Cannes, France, 1981.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Robbers, marshals, and guards: game theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width

          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
            PODS '01: Proceedings of the twentieth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
            May 2001
            301 pages
            ISBN:1581133618
            DOI:10.1145/375551

            Copyright © 2001 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: 1 May 2001

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            PODS '01 Paper Acceptance Rate26of99submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate642of2,707submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader