The Closure of Monadic NP

It is a well-known result of Fagin that the complexity class NP coincides with the class of problems expressible in existential second-order logic (?11), which allows sentences consisting of a string of existential second-order quantifiers followed by a first-order formula. Monadic NP is the class of problems expressible in monadic ?11, i.e., ?11 with the restriction that the second-order quantifiers are all unary and hence range only over sets (as opposed to ranging over, say, binary relations). For example, the property of a graph being 3-colorable belongs to monadic NP, because 3-colorability can be expressed by saying that there exists three sets of vertices such that each vertex is in exactly one of the sets and no two vertices in the same set are connected by an edge. Unfortunately, monadic NP is not a robust class, in that it is not closed under first-order quantification. We define closed monadic NP to be the closure of monadic NP under first-order quantification and existential unary second-order quantification. Thus, closed monadic NP differs from monadic NP in that we allow the possibility of arbitrary interleavings of first-order quantifiers among the existential unary second-order quantifiers. We show that closed monadic NP is a natural, rich, and robust subclass of NP. As evidence for its richness, we show that not only is it a proper extension of monadic NP, but that it contains properties not in various other extensions of monadic NP. In particular, we show that closed monadic NP contains an undirected graph property not in the closure of monadic NP under first-order quantification and Boolean operations. Our lower-bound proofs require a number of new game-theoretic techniques.

[1]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Some Simplified NP-Complete Graph Problems , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Monadic generalized spectra , 1975, Math. Log. Q..

[3]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  On monadic NP vs. monadic co-NP , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the Eigth Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference.

[4]  M. Golumbic.  Algorithmic graph theory and perfect graphs , 1980 .

[5]  Nicole Schweikardt.  The Monadic Quantifier Alternation Hierarchy over Grids and Pictures , 1997, CSL.

[6]  Wolfgang Thomas,et al.  The monadic quantifier alternation hierarchy over graphs is infinite , 1997, Proceedings of Twelfth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[7]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  On Winning Strategies in Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games , 1997, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[8]  Neil Immerman,et al.  Descriptive and Computational Complexity , 1989, FCT.

[9]  Johann A. Makowsky,et al.  Arity and Alternation in Second-Order Logic , 1996, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[10]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reachability is harder for directed than for undirected finite graphs , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[11]  Larry J. Stockmeyer,et al.  The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Comparing the Power of Games on Graphs , 1997, Math. Log. Q..

[13]  Bruno Courcelle,et al.  The Monadic Second order Logic of Graphs VI: on Several Representations of Graphs By Relational Structures , 1994, Discret. Appl. Math..

[14]  Oliver Matz.  First-Order Closure and the Monadic Second-Order Alternation Hierarchy , 1998 .

[15]  Michael J. Townsend,et al.  Thomas Piketty: Capital in the twenty-first century , 2014, Public Choice.

[16]  Joseph R. Shoenfield,et al.  Mathematical logic , 1967 .

[17]  R. Möhring.  Algorithmic graph theory and perfect graphs , 1986 .

[18]  Thomas Schwentick.  Graph Connectivity, Monadic NP and Built-in Relations of Moderate Degree , 1995, ICALP.

[19]  Neil Immerman,et al.  Languages that Capture Complexity Classes , 1987, SIAM J. Comput..

[20]  Samuel R. Buss,et al.  On Truth-Table Reducibility to SAT , 1991, Inf. Comput..

[21]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reachability is harder for directed than for undirected finite graphs , 1988, [Proceedings 1988] 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

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

[23]  Celia Wrathall,et al.  Complete Sets and the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy , 1976, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[24]  A. Ehrenfeucht.  An application of games to the completeness problem for formalized theories , 1961 .

[25]  Johann A. Makowsky,et al.  Arity vs. Alternation in Second Order Logic , 1994, LFCS.

[26]  Wolfgang Thomasemail.  The Monadic Quantiier Alternation Hierarchy over Graphs Is Innnite , 1998 .

[27]  F. Radermacher,et al.  Substitution Decomposition for Discrete Structures and Connections with Combinatorial Optimization , 1984 .

[28]  Klaus W. Wagner,et al.  Bounded Query Classes , 1990, SIAM J. Comput..

[29]  Jeremy P. Spinrad,et al.  P4-Trees and Substitution Decomposition , 1992, Discret. Appl. Math..

[30]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  On Winning Ehrenfeucht Games and Monadic NP , 1996, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[31]  Michael Sipser,et al.  Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy , 1981, 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1981).

[32]  György Turán,et al.  On the definability of properties of finite graphs , 1984, Discret. Math..

[33]  Stavros S. Cosmadakis,et al.  Logical reducibility and monadic NP , 1993, Proceedings of 1993 IEEE 34th Annual Foundations of Computer Science.

[34]  Michel de Rougemont.  Second-order and Inductive Definability on Finite Structures , 1987, Math. Log. Q..

[35]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  Subclasses of Binary NP , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[36]  Martin Otto.  An Note on the Number of Monadic Quantifiers in Monadic Sigma^1_1 , 1995, Inf. Process. Lett..

[37]  Herbert B. Enderton,et al.  A mathematical introduction to logic , 1972 .

[38]  Jerzy Marcinkowski.  Directed Reachability: From Ajtai-Fagin to Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games , 1999, CSL.

[39]  Juris Hartmanis,et al.  The Boolean Hierarchy I: Structural Properties , 1988, SIAM J. Comput..