AND-compression of NP-complete Problems: Streamlined Proof and Minor Observations

  • Holger DellEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8894)


Drucker [8] proved the following result: Unless the unlikely complexity-theoretic collapse \(\mathsf {coNP}\subseteq \mathsf {NP/poly}\) occurs, there is no AND-compression for SAT. The result has implications for the compressibility and kernelizability of a whole range of NP-complete parameterized problems. We present a streamlined proof of Drucker’s theorem.

An AND-compression is a deterministic polynomial-time algorithm that maps a set of SAT-instances \(x_1,\dots ,x_t\) to a single SAT-instance \(y\) of size \(\mathrm{poly }(\max _i|x_i|)\) such that \(y\) is satisfiable if and only if all \(x_i\) are satisfiable. The “AND” in the name stems from the fact that the predicate “\(y\) is satisfiable” can be written as the AND of all predicates “\(x_i\) is satisfiable”. Drucker’s theorem complements the result by Bodlaender et al. [3] and Fortnow and Santhanam [10], who proved the analogous statement for OR-compressions, and Drucker’s proof not only subsumes their result but also extends it to randomized compression algorithms that are allowed to have a certain probability of failure.

Drucker [8] presented two proofs: The first uses information theory and the minimax theorem from game theory, and the second is an elementary, iterative proof that is not as general. In our proof, we realize the iterative structure as a generalization of the arguments of Ko [12] for \(\mathsf {P}\)-selective sets, which use the fact that tournaments have dominating sets of logarithmic size. We generalize this fact to hypergraph tournaments. Our proof achieves the full generality of Drucker’s theorem, avoids the minimax theorem, and restricts the use of information theory to a single, intuitive lemma about the average noise sensitivity of compressive maps. To prove this lemma, we use the same information-theoretic inequalities as Drucker.


Boolean Function Polynomial Kernel Statistical Distance Full Version Minimax Theorem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank Andrew Drucker, Martin Grohe, and others for encouraging me to pursue the publication of this manuscript, David Xiao for pointing out Theorem 5 to me, Andrew Drucker, Dániel Marx, and anonymous referees for comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Dieter van Melkebeek for some helpful discussions.


  1. 1.
    Adleman, L.M.: Two theorems on random polynomial time. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 75–83 (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora, S., Barak, B.: Computational Complexity - A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodlaender, H.L., Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R., Hermelin, D.: On problems without polynomial kernels. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 75(8), 423–434 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodlaender, H.L., Jansen, B.M.P., Kratsch, S.: Kernelization lower bounds by cross-composition. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 28(1), 277–305 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dell, H., Kabanets, V., van Melkebeek, D., Watanabe, O.: Is Valiant-Vazirani’s isolation probability improvable? Comput. Complex. 22(2), 345–383 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dell, H., Marx, D.: Kernelization of packing problems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 68–81 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dell, H., van Melkebeek, D.: Satisfiability allows no nontrivial sparsification unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. J. ACM 61(4), 27 (2014)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drucker, A.: New limits to classical and quantum instance compression. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 609–618 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drucker, A.: New limits to classical and quantum instance compression. Technical report TR12-112 rev. 2, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) (2013).
  10. 10.
    Fortnow, L., Santhanam, R.: Infeasibility of instance compression and succinct PCPs for NP. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 77(1), 91–106 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hermelin, D., Wu, X.: Weak compositions and their applications to polynomial lower bounds for kernelization. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 104–113 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ko, K.I.: On self-reducibility and weak P-selectivity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 26, 209–211 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kratsch, S.: Co-nondeterminism in compositions: a kernelization lower bound for a Ramsey-type problem. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 114–122 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kratsch, S., Philip, G., Ray, S.: Point line cover: the easy kernel is essentially tight. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 1596–1606 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xiao, D.: New perspectives on the complexity of computational learning, and other problems in theoretical computer science. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University (2009).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cluster of Excellence, MMCISaarland UniversitySaarbruckenGermany

Personalised recommendations