An Exact Algorithm for the Boolean Connectivity Problem for k-CNF Kazuhisa Makino (U. of Tokyo) Suguru Tamaki (Kyoto U.) Masaki Yamamoto (Tokai U.)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Connectivity of Boolean Satisfiability: Computational & Structural Dichotomies Parikshit GopalanGeorgia Tech Phokion KolaitisIBM Almaden Elitza ManevaUC.
Advertisements

NP-Hard Nattee Niparnan.
Private Approximation of Search Problems Amos Beimel Paz Carmi Kobbi Nissim Enav Weinreb Ben Gurion University Research partially Supported by the Frankel.
1 Partition Into Triangles on Bounded Degree Graphs Johan M. M. van Rooij Marcel E. van Kooten Niekerk Hans L. Bodlaender.
NP-complete and NP-hard problems Transitivity of polynomial-time many-one reductions Concept of Completeness and hardness for a complexity class Definition.
The Theory of NP-Completeness
1 NP-Complete Problems. 2 We discuss some hard problems:  how hard? (computational complexity)  what makes them hard?  any solutions? Definitions 
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
CSC5160 Topics in Algorithms Tutorial 2 Introduction to NP-Complete Problems Feb Jerry Le
Complexity 11-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov NP-Completeness.
Beating Brute Force Search for Formula SAT and QBF SAT Rahul Santhanam University of Edinburgh.
Graphs 4/16/2017 8:41 PM NP-Completeness.
1 Optimization problems such as MAXSAT, MIN NODE COVER, MAX INDEPENDENT SET, MAX CLIQUE, MIN SET COVER, TSP, KNAPSACK, BINPACKING do not have a polynomial.
Reduction Techniques Restriction Local Replacement Component Design Examples.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 12 May 6, CS151 Lecture 122 Outline The Polynomial-Time Hierarachy (PH) Complete problems for classes in PH, PSPACE.
Phase Transitions of PP-Complete Satisfiability Problems D. Bailey, V. Dalmau, Ph.G. Kolaitis Computer Science Department UC Santa Cruz.
The Connectivity of Boolean Satisfiability: Structural and Computational Dichotomies Elitza Maneva (UC Berkeley) Joint work with Parikshit Gopalan, Phokion.
CSE 421 Algorithms Richard Anderson Lecture 27 NP Completeness.
Randomzied Unique k-SAT R. Paturi, P. Pudlak, M.E. Saks and F. Zane An Improved Exponential-time Algorithm for k-SAT Journal of the ACM, Vol 52, No. 3,
Toward NP-Completeness: Introduction Almost all the algorithms we studies so far were bounded by some polynomial in the size of the input, so we call them.
1 CSE 417: Algorithms and Computational Complexity Winter 2001 Lecture 22 Instructor: Paul Beame.
Dana Moshkovitz, MIT Joint work with Subhash Khot, NYU.
Complexity Classes Kang Yu 1. NP NP : nondeterministic polynomial time NP-complete : 1.In NP (can be verified in polynomial time) 2.Every problem in NP.
Fixed Parameter Complexity Algorithms and Networks.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2012/11/6 P: the class of problems which can be solved by a deterministic polynomial algorithm. NP : the class of decision.
Nattee Niparnan. Easy & Hard Problem What is “difficulty” of problem? Difficult for computer scientist to derive algorithm for the problem? Difficult.
February 18, 2015CS21 Lecture 181 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 18 February 18, 2015.
Theory of Computation, Feodor F. Dragan, Kent State University 1 NP-Completeness P: is the set of decision problems (or languages) that are solvable in.
Theory of Computing Lecture 17 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
CSEP 521 Applied Algorithms Richard Anderson Lecture 10 NP Completeness.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.
1 Lower Bounds Lower bound: an estimate on a minimum amount of work needed to solve a given problem Examples: b number of comparisons needed to find the.
Techniques for Proving NP-Completeness Show that a special case of the problem you are interested in is NP- complete. For example: The problem of finding.
CSE 589 Part VI. Reading Skiena, Sections 5.5 and 6.8 CLR, chapter 37.
NP-COMPLETE PROBLEMS. Admin  Two more assignments…  No office hours on tomorrow.
Lecture 6 NP Class. P = ? NP = ? PSPACE They are central problems in computational complexity.
NP-Complete problems.
NP-Completeness (Nondeterministic Polynomial Completeness) Sushanth Sivaram Vallath & Z. Joseph.
CS 3343: Analysis of Algorithms Lecture 25: P and NP Some slides courtesy of Carola Wenk.
CSE 589 Part V One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important. Bertrand Russell.
CSCI-256 Data Structures & Algorithm Analysis Lecture Note: Some slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright © 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved. 29.
CS6045: Advanced Algorithms NP Completeness. NP-Completeness Some problems are intractable: as they grow large, we are unable to solve them in reasonable.
Lecture 25 NP Class. P = ? NP = ? PSPACE They are central problems in computational complexity.
1 CPSC 320: Intermediate Algorithm Design and Analysis July 30, 2014.
CSC 413/513: Intro to Algorithms
1 Ch 10 - NP-completeness Tractable and intractable problems Decision/Optimization problems Deterministic/NonDeterministic algorithms Classes P and NP.
Why almost all satisfiable k - CNF formulas are easy? Danny Vilenchik Joint work with A. Coja-Oghlan and M. Krivelevich.
CSE 421 Algorithms Richard Anderson Lecture 27 NP-Completeness Proofs.
The Theory of NP-Completeness 1. Nondeterministic algorithms A nondeterminstic algorithm consists of phase 1: guessing phase 2: checking If the checking.
Complexity of Compositional Model Checking of Computation Tree Logic on Simple Structures Krishnendu Chatterjee Pallab Dasgupta P.P. Chakrabarti IWDC 2004,
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 4/13/2018 5:22 AM x x x x x
Richard Anderson Lecture 26 NP-Completeness
Lecture 2-2 NP Class.
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 7/23/ :02 PM x x x x
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 7/23/ :02 PM x x x x
NP-Completeness Proofs
Richard Anderson Lecture 26 NP-Completeness
Circuit Lower Bounds A combinatorial approach to P vs NP
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
Finding Large Set Covers Faster via the Representation Method
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 11/23/2018 2:12 PM x x x x
Richard Anderson Lecture 25 NP-Completeness
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
CSE 589 Applied Algorithms Spring 1999
Switching Lemmas and Proof Complexity
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 7/9/2019 6:12 AM x x x x x
Recent Structure Lemmas for Depth-Two Threshold Circuits
LECTURE 2-9 PSPACE-Complete
Presentation transcript:

An Exact Algorithm for the Boolean Connectivity Problem for k-CNF Kazuhisa Makino (U. of Tokyo) Suguru Tamaki (Kyoto U.) Masaki Yamamoto (Tokai U.)

(One of) Our Motivation Question: Can we solve generalized k-SAT in moderately exponential time?

(One of) Our Motivation Question: Can we solve generalized k-SAT in moderately exponential time? Generalized: Max-SAT, #SAT, QBF-SAT, Stochastic SAT, periodic SAT, …

(One of) Our Motivation Question: Can we solve generalized k-SAT in moderately exponential time? Moderately exponential: (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k – n: number of variables – (2-c) n for some c>0, c independent of k, seems impossible even for standard k-SAT (SETH)

Example: Max-k-SAT Task: find an assignment that maximize the number (total weight) of satisfied clauses Complexity: NP-hard for k≥2 Non-trivial exact algorithm: – k=2: n [Williams, ICALP 04] – k≥3: Open – PSAPCE algorithm for k=2 is also open

Example: #k-SAT Task: count the number of satisfying assignments Complexity: #P-complete for k ≥ 2 Non-trivial exact algorithm: – (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k (DPLL- type algorithm) – PSPACE algorithm

Example: k-QBF Task: decide a quantified formula is true/false Complexity: P (k=2), PSPACE-complete (k≥3) (in PH if #alternation is bounded) Non-trivial exact algorithm (special case): – Σ 2 -k-SAT: (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k (by easy reduction to standard k-SAT) – Π 2 -3-SAT cannot be solved in (2-c) n for any c>0, unless SAT can be solved in (2-c’) n for some c’>0 [Calabro, Impagliazzo, Paturi]

(One of) Our Motivation Question: Can we solve generalized k-SAT in moderately exponential time? – (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k Yes only for #SAT and some special cases of QBF (afawk) Other examples? – Should be natural extension of SAT

Our Target Problem: Conn-k-SAT (The Boolean Connectivity Problem) Input: k-CNF formula φ – H φ : the subgraph of n-dimensional hypercube induced by satisfying assignments of φ Task: decide H φ is connected or not – Empty graph (unsat case) is connected Complexity: P (k=2), PSPACE-complete (k ≥ 3) [Gopalan et al., ICALP 06]

Example 1 (0,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)(0,1,1)

Example 1 (0,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)(0,1,1) SAT UNSAT

Example 1 (0,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)(0,1,1) SAT UNSAT Induced edge Yes, connected

Example 2 (0,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)(0,1,1)

Example 2 (0,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)(0,1,1) SAT UNSAT

Example 2 (0,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)(0,1,1) SAT UNSAT Induced edge No, two connected components

Our Results Theorem: Conn-k-SAT can be solved in time (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k – E.g., (2-c 3 )=1.914

Some Remarks (First) non-trivial algorithm for PSPACE- complete version of k-SAT – Contrast to the hardness of Π 2 -3-SAT (2 n -time) – (of course, hardness class and running time of exact algorithms do not coincide) Exponential space algorithm – Lack of small-size (length dn for d<1) witness

Complexity of Boolean Connectivity in Schaefer’s framework Classification w.r.t. formula type [Gopalan et al., ICALP 06], [MTY, SAT 07]: – P: affine(linear), bijunctive(2CNF), IHSB+, IHSB- IHSB-/IHSB+: special case of Horn/dual-Horn – coNP-complete: Horn/dual-Horn – coNP-complete: Non-Schaefer, tight Schaefer={affine,bijunctive,Horn, dual-Horn} – PSPACE-complete: Non-tight Open: coNP-complete for Horn but not IHSB-?

Motivation for Boolean Connectivity Understanding the solution space of k-CNF – Solution space geometry of random k-SAT [Achlioptas, Ricci-Tersenghi, STOC 06] – Possible solution space of k-CNF → Circuit lower bound, better SAT algorithm [Hastad, STOC 86], [Paturi, Pudlak, Saks, Zane, JACM 05],…

Motivation for Boolean Connectivity Combinatorial interests [Ekin, Hammer, Kogan, DAM 99] Also in graph coloring problem [Bonsma, Cereceda MFCS 07] [Cereceda, van den Heuvel, Johnson, DM 08]

Technical Details Our Task: Given k-CNF φ, deciede G φ =(V,E) is connected or not – V :=SAT(φ)={x ∈ {0,1} n | φ(x)=1} – E :={e=(y,z), y,z ∈ V | d(y,z)=1} d(y,z): Hamming distance between y,z If G φ given, O(|V|+|E|)-time

Naïve algorithm Assume V=SAT(φ) is given Construct E by: – for each y ∈ V, for each z s.t. d(y,z)=1, if φ(z)=1 then add (y,z) to E – Takes n|V|-steps Check G(V,E) is connected Running time: n|V|poly(| φ |) steps |V| can be Ω(2 n ) !

Main idea Reducing the size of V Fact: Efficient k-SAT algorithm can enumerate all satisfying assignments in (2-c) n time – Output may be partial assignments (1,*,0,1,*,*,…,0) *: don’t care Change the notion of adjacent

Simple Backtracking Algorithm x z y ? ? ?

Some Properties Recursive call stops when φ becomes SAT/UNSAT under current partial assignment → each leaf may be a partial assignment Enumeration: – For any y ∈ SAT(φ), there exists a leaf (partial assignment) consistent to y – For any two leaves y,z, d(y,z)≥1 (enumerated once)

Some Properties Running time: (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k #(leaves of depth t) ≤ (2-c k ) t

Connectivity in Reduced Graph V’ :={satisfying partial assignments of φ} E’ :={e=(y,z), y,z ∈ V | d’(y,z)=1} d’(y,z):= #{i | y i ≠ z i, y i ≠*, z i ≠*} Fact: G=(V,E) is connected iff so is G’=(V’,E’)

Main idea Construct V’ by efficient k-SAT algorithm – |V’|≤(2-c k ) n for some c k – y ∈ V’ may be partial assignment How to construct E’? – Checking all neighbors? → y ∈ V’ has exponentially large #neighbors – Checking all pairs? → |V’| 2 exceeds 2 n

Main idea Decompose V’=U ∪ W – U :={y ∈ V’ | #* of y > t } shallow leaves – W :={y ∈ V’ | #* of y ≤ t } deep leaves Intuition – |U| is small → checking all pairs: |U| 2 << 2 n – y ∈ W has small #neighbors → checking all neighbors: |W|2 t << 2 n

Our Algorithm (Over Simplified) Construct V’ by efficient k-SAT algorithm Decompose V’:=U ∪ W – U:={y in V | #*(y) > t } shallow leaves – W:={y in V | #*(y) ≤ t } deep leaves Construct E’ by: – Checking all pairs of U – Checking all neighbors of W Check G’=(V’,E’) is connected

Upper bounds Construct V’ by (2-c k ) n -time k-SAT algorithm Construct E’ by: – Checking all pairs of U – Checking all neighbors of W |U| ≤(2-c k ) n-t → |U| 2 ≤(2-c k ) 2(n-t) ---(a) #{neighbors of W} ≤ ∑ t’>t (2-c k ) n-t’ 2 t’ ---(b) Choosing t appropriately, (a),(b) ≤ (2-c k ’) n

Conclusion Theorem: Conn-k-SAT can be solved in time (2-c k ) n for some c k >0, c k depends only on k – c 3 =1.914, c 4 =…, (First) non-trivial algorithm for PSPACE- complete version of k-SAT (w.r.t n)

Future Works Better upper bounds for CONN-k-SAT? – (Maybe, but not the scope of our paper) PSPACE algorithm? (possible for Horn-formula) Variation: ST-CONN is faster? (PSPACE- completeness known) Thank You !