arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2207.07422

Flow-augmentation III: Complexity dichotomy for Boolean CSPs parameterized by the number of unsatisfied constraints

Abstract

We study the parameterized problem of satisfying ``almost all'' constraints of a given formula $F$ over a fixed, finite Boolean constraint language $Γ$, with or without weights. More precisely, for each finite Boolean constraint language $Γ$, we consider the following two problems. In Min SAT$(Γ)$, the input is a formula $F$ over $Γ$ and an integer $k$, and the task is to find an assignment $α\colon V(F) \to \{0,1\}$ that satisfies all but at most $k$ constraints of $F$, or determine that no such assignment exists. In Weighted Min SAT$(Γ$), the input additionally contains a weight function $w \colon F \to \mathbb{Z}_+$ and an integer $W$, and the task is to find an assignment $α$ such that (1) $α$ satisfies all but at most $k$ constraints of $F$, and (2) the total weight of the violated constraints is at most $W$. We give a complete dichotomy for the fixed-parameter tractability of these problems: We show that for every Boolean constraint language $Γ$, either Weighted Min SAT$(Γ)$ is FPT; or Weighted Min SAT$(Γ)$ is W[1]-hard but Min SAT$(Γ)$ is FPT; or Min SAT$(Γ)$ is W[1]-hard. This generalizes recent work of Kim et al. (SODA 2021) which did not consider weighted problems, and only considered languages $Γ$ that cannot express implications $(u \to v)$ (as is used to, e.g., model digraph cut problems). Our result generalizes and subsumes multiple previous results, including the FPT algorithms for Weighted Almost 2-SAT, weighted and unweighted $\ell$-Chain SAT, and Coupled Min-Cut, as well as weighted and directed versions of the latter. The main tool used in our algorithms is the recently developed method of directed flow-augmentation (Kim et al., STOC 2022).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Eun Jung Kim, Stefan Kratsch, Marcin Pilipczuk, Magnus Wahlström. 2025-04-22. Flow-augmentation III: Complexity dichotomy for Boolean CSPs parameterized by the number of unsatisfied constraints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07422

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Improved Algorithms for the Remote Point Problem

The Remote Point Problem (RPP) is an algorithmic problem that asks, given a linear subspace $L \subseteq \mathbb{F}^n$ of dimension $k$, to deterministically find a vector $v \in \mathbb{F}^n$ far in Hamming distance from $L$. This problem was introduced by Alon, Panigrahy and Yekhanin [APY09], motivated in part by the matrix rigidity approach for proving circuit lower bounds. An algorithm is said to achieve remoteness $d$ if it finds a vector $v$ whose Hamming distance from $L$ is at least $d$. We observe that over the rational numbers, the problem admits a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm that achieves optimal remoteness $n-k$. Over finite fields, we obtain a (modest) improvement of a result of Alon, Panigrahy and Yekhanin [APY09], and give an algorithm that achieves remoteness $Ω\left(\frac{n}{\max\{k, \log n\}} \log n\right)$.

cs.CC

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC

Geometric Complexity Theory and Graph Isomorphism

We investigate ideas from the Geometric Complexity Theory approach to separating complexity classes (Mulmuley & Sohoni, SIAM J. Comput., 2001) in the setting of graph isomorphism. This provides us a playground of finite combinatorial objects on which to explore these techniques. We seek to separate non-isomorphic pairs of graphs using vector spaces of polynomials that are set-wise invariant under permutations (so-called separating modules). We characterize the power of this method for distinguishing graphs under several different complexity measures: - We show that separating modules of "support-degree" $k$ are equivalent in power to the counts of $O(k)$-vertex subgraphs. - We show that separating modules of symmetric algebraic circuit size $n^{Θ(k)}$ are equivalent to $Θ(k)$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman. This generalizes and strengthens the result of Dawar & Wilsenach (CSL '18; ICALP '20; ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 2022; Theory Comput., 2025). - When considering only the representation-theoretic multiplicities of separating modules, we show that two graphs are separated by multiplicities if and only if their automorphism groups have different multiplicity of cycle types (cycle index). The latter result is notable in the analogy with GCT, as it is the only result we are aware of in which the multiplicity approach to separating isomorphism types of objects has been given an "intrinsic" characterization in terms of the objects themselves. We show that for graphs, multiplicity obstructions are stronger than occurrence obstructions. We also connect support size (from the study of WL) to complexity measures on $S_n$ (Dafni, Filmus, Lifshitz, Lindzey, & Vinyals, ITCS '21); as well as connections between invariant polynomials, the Graph Reconstruction Conjectures, and Forman's "invariants of finite type" (Adv. Math., 2004).

cs.CC