TE-ETH: Lower Bounds for QBFs of Bounded Treewidth

The problem of deciding the validity (QSAT) of quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) is a vivid research area in both theory and practice. In the field of parameterized algorithmics, the well-studied graph measure treewidth turned out to be a successful parameter. A well-known result by Chen in parameterized complexity is that QSAT when parameterized by the treewidth of the primal graph of the input formula together with the quantifier depth of the formula is fixed-parameter tractable. More precisely, the runtime of such an algorithm is polynomial in the formula size and exponential in the treewidth, where the exponential function in the treewidth is a tower, whose height is the quantifier depth. A natural question is whether one can significantly improve these results and decrease the tower while assuming the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH). In the last years, there has been a growing interest in the quest of establishing lower bounds under ETH, showing mostly problem-specific lower bounds up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Still, an important question is to settle this as general as possible and to cover the whole polynomial hierarchy. In this work, we show lower bounds based on the ETH for arbitrary QBFs parameterized by treewidth (and quantifier depth). More formally, we establish lower bounds for QSAT and treewidth, namely, that under ETH there cannot be an algorithm that solves QSAT of quantifier depth i in runtime significantly better than i-fold exponential in the treewidth and polynomial in the input size. In doing so, we provide a versatile reduction technique to compress treewidth that encodes the essence of dynamic programming on arbitrary tree decompositions. Further, we describe a general methodology for a more fine-grained analysis of problems parameterized by treewidth that are at higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

[1]  Rehan Abdul Aziz Answer set programming: founded bounds and model counting , 2015 .

[2]  Stefan Szeider,et al.  Parameterized Complexity Results for Exact Bayesian Network Structure Learning , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  Martin Grohe,et al.  Descriptive Complexity, Canonisation, and Definable Graph Structure Theory , 2017, Lecture Notes in Logic.

[4]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph minors. I. Excluding a forest , 1983, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[5]  Johannes Klaus Fichte,et al.  Treewidth and Counting Projected Answer Sets , 2019, LPNMR.

[6]  Markus Chimani,et al.  Improved Steiner Tree Algorithms for Bounded Treewidth , 2011, IWOCA.

[7]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Computational complexity , 1993 .

[8]  Ronald Fagin Generalized first-order spectra, and polynomial. time recognizable sets , 1974 .

[9]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[10]  Stefan Szeider,et al.  Backdoors to Tractable Answer-Set Programming , 2011, IJCAI.

[11]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  The Complexity of Logic-Based Abduction , 1993, STACS.

[12]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth , 1993, STOC.

[13]  B. Mohar,et al.  Graph Minors , 2009 .

[14]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  The Computer Journal Special Issue on Parameterized Complexity: Foreword by the Guest Editors , 2008, Comput. J..

[15]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Tractable Structures for Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 2006, Handbook of Constraint Programming.

[16]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[17]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Answer set programming at a glance , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[18]  Bruno Courcelle,et al.  On the fixed parameter complexity of graph enumeration problems definable in monadic second-order logic , 2001, Discret. Appl. Math..

[19]  Dániel Marx,et al.  Double-Exponential and Triple-Exponential Bounds for Choosability Problems Parameterized by Treewidth , 2016, ICALP.

[20]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases , 1991, New Generation Computing.

[21]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Exploiting Treewidth for Projected Model Counting and its Limits , 2018, SAT.

[22]  Dániel Marx,et al.  Slightly superexponential parameterized problems , 2011, SODA '11.

[23]  Wolfgang Faber,et al.  Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Stefan Rümmele,et al.  Counting and Enumeration Problems with Bounded Treewidth , 2010, LPAR.

[25]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  Dynamic Programming on Graphs with Bounded Treewidth , 1988, ICALP.

[26]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph Minors. II. Algorithmic Aspects of Tree-Width , 1986, J. Algorithms.

[27]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph minors. III. Planar tree-width , 1984, J. Comb. Theory B.

[28]  Arie M. C. A. Koster,et al.  Combinatorial Optimization on Graphs of Bounded Treewidth , 2008, Comput. J..

[29]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Bounded treewidth as a key to tractability of knowledge representation and reasoning , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  Subtractive reductions and complete problems for counting complexity classes , 2000 .

[31]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case , 1995, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[32]  Michael Lampis,et al.  Treewidth with a Quantifier Alternation Revisited , 2018, IPEC.

[33]  Florian Lonsing,et al.  Evaluating QBF Solvers: Quantifier Alternations Matter , 2018, CP.

[34]  J. A. Bondy,et al.  Graph Theory , 2008, Graduate Texts in Mathematics.

[35]  Andreas Jakoby,et al.  Logspace Versions of the Theorems of Bodlaender and Courcelle , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[36]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Evaluating Epistemic Negation in Answer Set Programming (Extended Abstract) , 2017, IJCAI.

[37]  Bruno Courcelle,et al.  Graph Rewriting: An Algebraic and Logic Approach , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[38]  Ilkka Niemelä,et al.  The Answer Set Programming Paradigm , 2016, AI Mag..

[39]  Michal Pilipczuk,et al.  Parameterized Algorithms , 2015, Springer International Publishing.

[40]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[41]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Expansion-based QBF Solving on Tree Decompositions , 2017, RCRA@AI*IA.

[42]  Hans K. Buning,et al.  Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms , 1999 .

[43]  P. Seymour,et al.  Surveys in combinatorics 1985: Graph minors – a survey , 1985 .

[44]  Hubie Chen,et al.  Quantified Constraint Satisfaction and Bounded Treewidth , 2004, ECAI.

[45]  Ur Informationssysteme,et al.  Towards Fixed-Parameter Tractable Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation , 2011 .

[46]  Marko Samer,et al.  Algorithms for propositional model counting , 2007, J. Discrete Algorithms.

[47]  Stefan Mengel,et al.  QBF as an Alternative to Courcelle's Theorem , 2018, SAT.

[48]  Jörg Flum,et al.  Parameterized Complexity Theory , 2006, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series.

[49]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  Review of: Fundamentals of Parameterized Complexity by Rodney G. Downey and Michael R. Fellows , 2015, SIGA.

[50]  Arne Meier,et al.  Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation , 2018, AAAI.

[51]  Albert Atserias,et al.  Bounded-width QBF is PSPACE-complete , 2013, STACS.

[52]  Moshe Y. Vardi,et al.  Fixed-Parameter Hierarchies inside PSPACE , 2006, 21st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'06).

[53]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph minors. X. Obstructions to tree-decomposition , 1991, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[54]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Solving Advanced Reasoning Tasks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[55]  Eugene C. Freuder A sufficient condition for backtrack-bounded search , 1985, JACM.