skip to main content
research-article

Lower Bounds for QBFs of Bounded Treewidth

Published: 08 July 2020 Publication History

Abstract

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 [9] is that QSat when parameterized by the treewidth of the primal graph and the quantifier rank of the input 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 rank. 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 rank. More formally, we establish lower bounds for QSat and treewidth, namely, that under ETH there cannot be an algorithm that solves QSat of quantifier rank i in runtime significantly better than i-fold exponential in the treewidth and polynomial in the input size. In doing so, we provide a reduction technique to compress treewidth that encodes dynamic programming on arbitrary tree decompositions. Further, we describe a general methodology for a more finegrained analysis of problems parameterized by treewidth that are at higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy. Finally, we illustrate the usefulness of our results by discussing various applications of our results to problems that are located higher on the polynomial hierarchy, in particular, various problems from the literature such as projected model counting problems.

References

[1]
Albert Atserias and Sergi Oliva. 2014. Bounded-width QBF is PSPACE-complete. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 80, 7 (2014), 1415--1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2014.04.014
[2]
Rehan A. Aziz. 2015. Answer Set Programming: Founded Bounds and Model Counting. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne.
[3]
Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren, and Toby Walsh (Eds.). 2009. Handbook of Satisfiability. FAIA, Vol. 185. IOS Press.
[4]
Hans L. Bodlaender. 1988. Dynamic Programming on Graphs with Bounded Treewidth. In Proceedings of the 15th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP'88) (LNCS), Vol. 317. Springer, 105--118. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-19488-6
[5]
Hans L. Bodlaender. 1996. A linear-time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. SIAM J. Comput. 25, 6 (1996), 1305--1317. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539793251219
[6]
Hans L. Bodlaender and Arie M. Koster. 2008. Combinatorial Optimization on Graphs of Bounded Treewidth. Comput. J. 51, 3 (2008), 255--269. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxm037
[7]
John A. Bondy and Uppaluri S. R. Murty. 2008. Graph theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 244. Springer. 655 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-970-5
[8]
Günther Charwat and Stefan Woltran. 2019. Expansion-based QBF Solving on Tree Decompositions. Fundam. Inform. 167, 1-2 (2019), 59--92. https://doi.org/10.3233/FI-2019-1810
[9]
Hubie Chen. 2004. Quantified Constraint Satisfaction and Bounded Treewidth. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'04), Vol. IOS Press. 161--170.
[10]
Markus Chimani, Petra Mutzel, and Bernd Zey. 2012. Improved Steiner tree algorithms for bounded treewidth. J. Discrete Algorithms 16 (2012), 67--78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jda.2012.04.016
[11]
Bruno Courcelle. 1990. Graph Rewriting: An Algebraic and Logic Approach. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. B. Elsevier, 193--242. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-88074-1.50010-x
[12]
Bruno Courcelle, Johann A. Makowsky, and Udi Rotics. 2001. On the fixed parameter complexity of graph enumeration problems definable in monadic second-order logic. Discr. Appl. Math. 108, 1-2 (2001), 23--52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-218X(00)00221-3
[13]
Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Łukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michał Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. 2015. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer. XVII, 613 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3
[14]
Rina Dechter. 2006. Tractable Structures for Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In Handbook of Constraint Programming. Vol. I. Elsevier, Chapter 7, 209--244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-6526(06)80011-8
[15]
Reinhard Diestel. 2012. Graph Theory, 4th Edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 173. Springer. 410 pages.
[16]
Rodney G. Downey and Michael R. Fellows. 2013. Fundamentals of Parameterized Complexity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5559-1
[17]
Arnaud Durand, Miki Hermann, and Phokion G. Kolaitis. 2005. Sub-tractive reductions and complete problems for counting complexity classes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 340, 3 (2005), 496--513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2005.03.012
[18]
Wolfgang Dvořák, Reinhard Pichler, and Stefan Woltran. 2012. Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. 186 (2012), 1--37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.03.005
[19]
Uwe Egly, Thomas Eiter, Hans Tompits, and Stefan Woltran. 2000. Solving Advanced Reasoning Tasks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI 2000). AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 417--422.
[20]
Thomas Eiter and Georg Gottlob. 1995. The Complexity of Logic-Based Abduction. J. ACM 42, 1 (1995), 3--42. https://doi.org/10.1145/200836.200838
[21]
Thomas Eiter and Georg Gottlob. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15, 3-4 (1995), 289--323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01536399
[22]
Michael Elberfeld, Andreas Jakoby, and Till Tantau. 2010. Logspace versions of the theorems of Bodlaender and Courcelle. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'10). IEEE, 143--152. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2010.21
[23]
Ronald Fagin. 1974. Generalized First-Order Spectra and Polynomial-Time Recognizable Sets. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposia in Applied Mathematics. AMS.
[24]
Alex Ferguson and Barry O'Sullivan. 2007. Quantified Constraint Satisfaction Problems: From Relaxations to Explanations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007). The AAAI Press, 74--79.
[25]
Johannes K. Fichte and Markus Hecher. 2019. Treewidth and Counting Projected Answer Sets. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2019) (LNCS), Vol. 11481. Springer, 105--119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20528-7_9
[26]
Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, and Arne Meier. 2019. Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI 2019). The AAAI Press, 2827--2834. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33012827
[27]
Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, Michael Morak, and Stefan Woltran. 2018. Exploiting Treewidth for Projected Model Counting and its Limits. In Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT'18) (LNCS), Vol. 10929. Springer, 165--184. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_11
[28]
Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, Patrick Thier, and Stefan Woltran. 2020. Exploiting Database Management Systems and Treewidth for Counting. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL 2020) (LNCS), Vol. 12007. Springer, 151--167. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39197-3_10
[29]
Johannes K. Fichte and Stefan Szeider. 2015. Backdoors to Tractable Answer-Set Programming. Artif. Intell. 220, C (2015), 64--103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.12.001
[30]
Jörg Flum and Martin Grohe. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Springer. 495 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29953-X
[31]
Eugene C. Freuder. 1985. A sufficient condition for backtrack-bounded search. J. ACM 32, 4 (1985), 755--761. https://doi.org/10.1145/4221.4225
[32]
Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman.
[33]
Georg Gottlob, Reinhard Pichler, and Fang Wei. 2010. Bounded treewidth as a key to tractability of knowledge representation and reasoning. Artif. Intell. 174, 1 (2010), 105--132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.10.003
[34]
Martin Grohe. 2017. Descriptive Complexity, Canonisation, and Definable Graph Structure Theory. Vol. 47. Cambridge University Press.
[35]
Markus Hecher, Michael Morak, and Stefan Woltran. 2020. Structural Decompositions of Epistemic Logic Programs. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI 2020). The AAAI Press. In press.
[36]
Neil Immerman. 1999. Descriptive complexity. Springer.
[37]
Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. 2001. Which Problems Have Strongly Exponential Complexity? J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 4 (2001), 512--530. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.2001.1774
[38]
Michael Jakl, Reinhard Pichler, and Stefan Woltran. 2009. Answer-Set Programming with Bounded Treewidth. In Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), Vol. 2. 816--822.
[39]
Hans Kleine Büning and Theodor Lettman. 1999. Propositional Logic: Deduction and Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. 420 pages.
[40]
Ton Kloks. 1994. Treewidth, Computations and Approximations. LNCS, Vol.842. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0045375
[41]
Michael Lampis, Stefan Mengel, and Valia Mitsou. 2018. QBF as an Alternative to Courcelle's Theorem. In Proceedings of the 21th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT'18). Springer, 235--252. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94144-8_15
[42]
Michael Lampis and Valia Mitsou. 2017. Treewidth with a Quantifier Alternation Revisited. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IPEC'17) (LIPIcs), Vol. 89. Dagstuhl Publishing, 26:1--26:12. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.IPEC.2017.26
[43]
Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, and Saket Saurabh. 2018. Slightly Superexponential Parameterized Problems. SIAM J. Comput. 47, 3 (2018), 675--702. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1104834
[44]
Florian Lonsing and Uwe Egly. 2018. Evaluating QBF Solvers: Quantifier Alternations Matter. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2018) (LNCS), Vol. 11008. Springer, 276--294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98334-9_19
[45]
Dániel Marx and Valia Mitsou. 2016. Double-Exponential and Triple-Exponential Bounds for Choosability Problems Parameterized by Treewidth. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016) (LIPIcs), Vol. 55. Dagstuhl Publishing, 28:1--28:15. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.28
[46]
Sebastian Ordyniak and Stefan Szeider. 2013. Parameterized Complexity Results for Exact Bayesian Network Structure Learning. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 46 (2013), 263--302. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.3744
[47]
Guoqiang Pan and Moshe Y. Vardi. 2006. Fixed-Parameter Hierarchies inside PSPACE. In LICS. IEEE Computer Society, 27--36. https://doi.org/10.1109/LICS.2006.25
[48]
Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley. 523 pages.
[49]
Reinhard Pichler, Stefan Rümmele, and Stefan Woltran. 2010. Counting and Enumeration Problems with Bounded Treewidth. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR'10) (LNCS), Vol. 6355. Springer, 387--404. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_22
[50]
Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. 1983. Graph Minors. I. Excluding a Forest. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 35, 1 (1983), 39--61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(83)90079-5
[51]
Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. 1984. Graph Minors. III. Planar Tree-Width. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 36, 1 (1984), 49--64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(84)90013-3
[52]
Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. 1985. Graph Minors -- a Survey. In Surveys in Combinatorics 1985: Invited Papers for the 10th British Combinatorial Conference (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series). Cambridge University Press, 153--171. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107325678.009
[53]
Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. 1986. Graph Minors. II. Algorithmic Aspects of Tree-Width. J. Algorithms 7, 3 (1986), 309--322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6774(86)90023-4
[54]
Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. 1991. Graph minors. X. Obstructions to tree-decomposition. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 52, 2 (1991), 153--190.
[55]
Marko Samer and Stefan Szeider. 2010. Algorithms for propositional model counting. J. Discrete Algorithms 8, 1 (2010), 50--64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jda.2009.06.002
[56]
Yi-Dong Shen and Thomas Eiter. 2017. Evaluating Epistemic Negation in Answer Set Programming (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017). ijcai.org, 5060--5064. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/722
[57]
Larry J. Stockmeyer and Albert R. Meyer. 1973. Word problems requiring exponential time. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'73). ACM, 1--9. https://doi.org/10.1145/800125.804029

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Tight Double Exponential Lower BoundsTheory and Applications of Models of Computation10.1007/978-981-97-2340-9_11(124-136)Online publication date: 3-May-2024
  • (2024)Reducing Treewidth for SAT-Related Problems Using Simple LiftingsCombinatorial Optimization10.1007/978-3-031-60924-4_14(175-191)Online publication date: 22-May-2024
  • (2023)Quantitative reasoning and structural complexity for claim-centric argumentationProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2023/358(3212-3220)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
LICS '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
July 2020
986 pages
ISBN:9781450371049
DOI:10.1145/3373718
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 July 2020

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. ETH
  2. Lower Bounds
  3. Parameterized Complexity
  4. Pathwidth
  5. Quantified Boolean Formulas
  6. Treewidth

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

LICS '20
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

LICS '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 69 of 174 submissions, 40%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 215 of 622 submissions, 35%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)31
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 19 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Tight Double Exponential Lower BoundsTheory and Applications of Models of Computation10.1007/978-981-97-2340-9_11(124-136)Online publication date: 3-May-2024
  • (2024)Reducing Treewidth for SAT-Related Problems Using Simple LiftingsCombinatorial Optimization10.1007/978-3-031-60924-4_14(175-191)Online publication date: 22-May-2024
  • (2023)Quantitative reasoning and structural complexity for claim-centric argumentationProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2023/358(3212-3220)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
  • (2023)Structure-Aware Lower Bounds and Broadening the Horizon of Tractability for QBF2023 38th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS)10.1109/LICS56636.2023.10175675(1-14)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Reasoning in Assumption-Based Argumentation Using Tree-DecompositionsLogics in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_14(192-208)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2023
  • (2022)Proceedings 38th International Conference on Logic ProgrammingElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science10.4204/EPTCS.364.18364(147-149)Online publication date: 4-Aug-2022
  • (2022)A Practical Account into Counting Dung’s Extensions by Dynamic ProgrammingLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_30(387-400)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2022
  • (2021)DynASP2.5: Dynamic Programming on Tree Decompositions in ActionAlgorithms10.3390/a1403008114:3(81)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2021
  • (2021)Utilizing Treewidth for Quantitative Reasoning on Epistemic Logic ProgramsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.1017/S147106842100039921:5(575-592)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2021
  • (2021)Exploiting Database Management Systems and Treewidth for CountingTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.1017/S147106842100003X(1-30)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media