skip to main content
10.1145/1806689.1806724acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On the complexity of circuit satisfiability

Published:05 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we are concerned with the exponential complexity of the Circuit Satisfiability (CktSat) problem and more generally with the exponential complexity of NP-complete problems. Over the past 15 years or so, researchers have obtained a number of exponential-time algorithms with improved running times for exactly solving a variety of NP-complete problems. The improvements are typically in the form of better exponents compared to exhaustive search. Our goal is to develop techniques to prove specific lower bounds on the exponents under plausible complexity assumptions. We consider natural, though restricted, algorithmic paradigms and prove upper bounds on the success probability. Our approach has the advantage of clarifying the relative power of various algorithmic paradigms. Our main technique is a success probability amplification technique, called the Exponential Amplification Lemma, which shows that for any f(n,m)-size bounded probabilistic circuit family A that decides CktSat with success probability at least 2-α n for α<1 on inputs which are circuits of size m with n variables, there is another probabilistic circuit family B that decides CktSat with size roughly f(α n, f(n,m)) and success probability about 22 n > 2-α n.

In contrast, the standard method for boosting success probability by repeated trials will improve it to (1-(1-2-α n)t) (approx t2-α n for t=O(2α n)) using circuits of size about tf(n,m).

Using this lemma, we derive tight bounds on the exponent of the success probability for deciding the CktSat problem in a variety of probabilistic computational models under complexity assumptions. For example, we show that the success probability cannot be better than 2-n+o(n) for deciding CktSat by probabilistic polynomial size circuits unless CktSat (thereby all of NP) for polynomial size instances can be decided by 2nμ size deterministic circuits for some μ <1, which is considered an unlikely event. As another example, we show that probabilistic quasilinear size circuits cannot achieve success probability better than 2-n+o(n) unless CktSat (as well as NP) has O(mO(lg lg m)) size deterministic circuits, which is very close to the statement NP ⊆ P/poly, an unlikely scenario.

References

  1. Karl R. Abrahamson, Rodney G. Downey, and Michael R. Fellows. Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness iv: On completeness for w{p} and pspace analogues. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 73(3):235--276, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Miklós Ajtai, Ravi Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. A sieve algorithm for the shortest lattice vector problem. In STOC '01, 601--610, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Richard Beigel. Finding maximum independent sets in sparse and general graphs. In SODA '99, 856--857, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Richard Beigel and David Eppstein. 3-coloring in time o(1.3446n): A no-mis algorithm. In FOCS '95,444--452, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Richard Bellman. Dynamic programming treatment of the travelling salesman problem. Journal of the ACM, 9(1):61--63, 1962. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Andreas Björklund, Thore Husfeldt, Petteri Kaski, and Mikko Koivisto. Fourier meets möbius: Fast subset convolution. In STOC '07, 67--74, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andreas Björklund, Thore Husfeldt, Petteri Kaski, and Mikko Koivisto. Computing the tutte polynomial in vertex-exponential time. In FOCS '08,677--686, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andreas Björklund, Thore Husfeldt, and Mikko Koivisto. Set partitioning via inclusion-exclusion. SIAM Journal of Computing, 39(2):546--563, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hans Bodlaender and Dieter Kratsch. An exact algorithm for graph coloring with polynomial memory. Technical Report UU-CS-2006-015, Utrecht University, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Richard P. Brent, Fred G. Gustavson, and David Y. Y. Yun. Fast solution of toeplitz systems of equations and computation of padé approximants. J. Algorithms, 1(3):259--295, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. J. M. Byskov. Exact Algorithms for Graph Colouring and Exact Satisfiability. PhD thesis, Aarhus University, August 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jesper Makholm Byskov. Algorithms for k-colouring and finding maximal independent sets. In SODA '03, 456--457, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jianer Chen, Xiuzhen Huang, Iyad A. Kanj, and Ge Xia. Strong computational lower bounds via parameterized complexity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 72(8):1346--1367, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Evgeny Dantsin, Andreas Goerdt, Edward A. Hirsch, Ravi Kannan, Jon Kleinberg, Christos Papadimitriou, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Uwe Schöning. A deterministic (2 -- 2/(k 1))n algorithm for k-sat based on local search. Theoretical Computer Science, 289(1):69--83, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. David Eppstein. Improved algorithms for 3--coloring, 3-edge-coloring, and constraint satisfaction. In SODA '01, 329--337, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. David Eppstein. Small maximal independent sets and faster exact graph coloring. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 7:131--140, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. David Eppstein. Quasiconvex analysis of multivariate recurrence equations for backtracking algorithms. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 2(4):492--509, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. F. Fomin, F. Grandoni, and D. Kratsch. Measure and conquer : a simple o(20.288n) independent set algorithm. In SODA '06, 18--25, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jens Gramm, Edward A. Hirsch, Rolf Niedermeier, and Peter Rossmanith. Worst-case upper bounds for max-2-sat with an application to max-cut. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 130(2):139--155, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Michael Held and Richard M. Karp. A dynamic programming approach to sequencing problems. In Proceedings of the 1961 16th ACM national meeting, 71.201--71.204, 1961. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Impagliazzo and R. Paturi. The complexity of k-sat. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences, 62(2):367--375, March 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Impagliazzo, R. Paturi, and F. Zane. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63:512--530, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yuval Ishai, Eyal Kushilevitz, Rafail Ostrovsky, and Amit Sahai. Cryptography with constant computational overhead. In STOC '08, 433--442, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. E. Kaltofen and A. Lobo. On rank properties of toeplitz matrices over finite fields. In ISSAC '96, 241--249, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Richard M. Karp. Dynamic programming meets the principle of inclusion and exclusion. Operations Research Letters, 1:49--51, April 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ioannis Koutis. Faster algebraic algorithms for path and packing problems. In ICALP '08, 575--586, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. E. Lawler. A note on the complexity of the chromatic number problem. Information Processing Letters, 5(3):66--67, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Dániel Marx. Can you beat treewidth? In FOCS '07, 169--179, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Dániel Marx. On the optimality of planar and geometric approximation schemes. In FOCS '07, 338--348, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Daniele Micciancio and Panagiotis Voulgaris. A deterministic single exponential time algorithm for most lattice problems based on voronoi cell computations. In STOC '10, 2010. To appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Daniele Micciancio and Panagiotis Voulgaris. Faster exponential time algorithms for the shortest vector problem. In SODA '10, 1468--1480, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Victor Pan. Structured Matrices and Polynomials: Unified Superfast Algorithms. Birkhauser, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. R. Paturi, P. Pudlák, and F. Zane. Satisfiability coding lemma. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, December 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Nicholas Pippenger. Fast simulation of combinational logic circuits without random-access storage. In Fifteenth Allerton Conference, 25--33, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Nicholas Pippenger and Michael J. Fischer. Relations among complexity measures. J. ACM, 26(2):361--381, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. J. M. Robson. Algorithms for maximum independent sets. Journal of Algorithms, 7:425--440, September 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Michael E. Saks. Space efficient algorithms for np-hard sequencing and partition problems. manuscript, November 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Claus-Peter Schnorr. Satisfiability is quasilinear complete in nql. J. ACM, 25(1):136--145, 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. U. Schöning. A probabilistic algorithm for k-sat and constraint satisfaction problems. In FOCS '99, 410--414, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Richard Edwin Stearns and Harry B. Hunt. Power indices and easier hard problems. Mathematical Systems Theory, 23(4):209--225, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Patrick Traxler. The time complexity of constraint satisfaction. In 2008 Dagstuhl Workshop on Moderately Exponential-time Algorithms, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. L. Valiant and V. Vazirani. NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoretical Computer Science, 47:85--93, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Dieter van Melkebeek. A survey of lower bounds for satisfiability and related problems. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 14(099), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan Williams. Finding paths of length k in O*(2k) time. Information Processing Letters, 109(6):315--318, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On the complexity of circuit satisfiability

    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