Hostname: page-component-588bc86c8c-t2m8k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-30T14:08:55.058Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constrained read-once refutations in UTVPI constraint systems: A parallel perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

K. Subramani Open the ORCID record for K. Subramani [Opens in a new window]  and
Piotr Wojciechowski
K. Subramani*
Affiliation:
LCSEE, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
Piotr Wojciechowski
Affiliation:
LCSEE, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
*
Corresponding author: K. Subramani; Email: k.subramani@mail.wvu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze two types of refutations for Unit Two Variable Per Inequality (UTVPI) constraints. A UTVPI constraint is a linear inequality of the form: $a_{i}\cdot x_{i}+a_{j} \cdot x_{j} \le b_{k}$, where $a_{i},a_{j}\in \{0,1,-1\}$ and $b_{k} \in \mathbb{Z}$. A conjunction of such constraints is called a UTVPI constraint system (UCS) and can be represented in matrix form as: ${\bf A \cdot x \le b}$. UTVPI constraints are used in many domains including operations research and program verification. We focus on two variants of read-once refutation (ROR). An ROR is a refutation in which each constraint is used at most once. A literal-once refutation (LOR), a more restrictive form of ROR, is a refutation in which each literal ($x_i$ or $-x_i$) is used at most once. First, we examine the constraint-required read-once refutation (CROR) problem and the constraint-required literal-once refutation (CLOR) problem. In both of these problems, we are given a set of constraints that must be used in the refutation. RORs and LORs are incomplete since not every system of linear constraints is guaranteed to have such a refutation. This is still true even when we restrict ourselves to UCSs. In this paper, we provide NC reductions between the CROR and CLOR problems in UCSs and the minimum weight perfect matching problem. The reductions used in this paper assume a CREW PRAM model of parallel computation. As a result, the reductions establish that, from the perspective of parallel algorithms, the CROR and CLOR problems in UCSs are equivalent to matching. In particular, if an NC algorithm exists for either of these problems, then there is an NC algorithm for matching.

Keywords

UTVPI constraintsmatchingparallel algorithmsread-once refutation
Type
Special Issue: TAMC 2022
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , First View , pp. 1 - 17
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alekhnovich, M., Buss, S., Moran, S. and Pitassi, T. (1998). Minimum propositional proof length is NP-hard to linearly approximate. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anari, N. and Vazirani, V. V. (2017). Planar graph perfect matching is in NC. In: 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 650–661.Google Scholar
Anari, N. and Vazirani, V. V. (2020). Matching is as easy as the decision problem, in the NC model. In: 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2020, January 12–14, 2020, Seattle, Washington, USA, LIPIcs, vol. 151, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 54:1–54:25.Google Scholar
Blum, M., Luby, M. and Rubinfeld, R. (1990). Program result checking against adaptive programs and in cryptographic settings (extended abstract). In: DIMACS Workshop on Distributed Computing and Crypthography, American Mathematical Society, 107–118.Google Scholar
Cook, W., Cunningham, W. H., Pulleyblank, W. and Schrijver, A. (1998). Combinatorial Optimization, New York, NY, USA, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L. and Stein, C. (2001). Introduction to Algorithms, Cambridge, MA, USA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cousot, P. and Cousot, R. (1977). Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: POPL, 238–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, R., Pettie, S. and Su, H.-H. (2018). Scaling algorithms for weighted matching in general graphs. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 14 (1) 8:1–8:35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, J. (1967). An introduction to matching. Mimeographed notes. Engineering Summer Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Farkas, G. (1902). Über die Theorie der Einfachen Ungleichungen. Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 124 (124) 1–27.Google Scholar
Gabow, H. N. (1976). An efficient implementation of Edmonds’ algorithm for maximum matching on graphs. Journal of the ACM 23 (2) 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, R., Pugh, W. and Saksena, M. (1995). Parametric dispatching of hard real-time tasks. IEEE Transactions on Computers 44 (3) 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haken, A. (1985). The intractability of resolution. Theoretical Computer Science 39 (2-3) 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. and Stuckey, P. J. (1997). A unit two variable per inequality integer constraint solver for constraint logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computer Science Conference, 102–111.Google Scholar
Hochbaum, D. S. and (Seffi) Naor, J. (1994). Simple and fast algorithms for linear and integer programs with two variables per inequality. SIAM Journal on Computing 23 (6) 1179–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwama, K. (1997). Complexity of finding short resolution proofs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1295 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwama, K. and Miyano, E. (1995). Intractability of read-once resolution. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory (SCTC’95), Los Alamitos, CA, USA, June 1995, IEEE Computer Society Press, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, M., Anisiu, M.-C., Domoszali, L., Iványi, A., Kasa, Z., Pirzada, S., Szécsi, L., Szidarovszky, F., Szirmay-Kalos, L. and Vizvári, B. (2013). Algorithms of Informatics, Budapest, Mondat Kft.Google Scholar
Kleine Büning, H., Wojciechowski, P. J. and Subramani, K. (2018). Finding read-once resolution refutations in systems of 2CNF clauses. Theoretical Computer Science 729 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleine Büning, H. and Zhao, X. (2002). The complexity of read-once resolution. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 36 (4) 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korte, B. and Vygen, J. (2010). Combinatorial Optimization, 4th edition, Algorithms and Combinatorics, vol. 21, New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lahiri, S. K. and Musuvathi, M. (2005). An efficient decision procedure for UTVPI constraints. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on the Frontiers of Combining Systems, September 19–21, Vienna, Austria, New York, Springer, 168–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, F. T. (1992). Introduction to Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, San Francisco, CA, USA, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Miné, A. (2006). The octagon abstract domain. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation 19 (1) 31–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemhauser, G. L. and Wolsey, L. A. (1999). Integer and Combinatorial Optimization, New York, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, C. H. (1994). Computational Complexity, New York, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A. (1965). A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the ACM 12 (1) 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankowski, P. (2018). NC algorithms for weighted planar perfect matching and related problems. In: 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2018), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 107, Dagstuhl, Germany, Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 97:1–97:16.Google Scholar
Schrijver, A. (1987). Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, New York, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Subramani, K. and Wojciechowki, P. (2019). A polynomial time algorithm for read-once certification of linear infeasibility in UTVPI constraints. Algorithmica 81 (7) 2765–2794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramani, K. and Wojciechowski, P. J. (2017). A combinatorial certifying algorithm for linear feasibility in UTVPI constraints. Algorithmica 78 (1) 166–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramani, K. and Wojciechowski, P. J. (2018). A certifying algorithm for lattice point feasibility in a system of UTVPI constraints. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 35 (2) 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szeider, S. (2001). NP-completeness of refutability by literal-once resolution. In: Automated Reasoning, First International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2001, Siena, Italy, June 18–23, 2001, Proceedings, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinyals, M., Elffers, J., Giráldez-Cru, J., Gocht, S. and Nordström, J. (2018). In between resolution and cutting planes: A study of proof systems for pseudo-boolean SAT solving. In: Beyersdorff, O. and Wintersteiger, C. M. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2018, Cham, Springer International Publishing, 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar