On the Computational Complexity of Monotone Constraint Satisfaction Problems

  • Miki Hermann
  • Florian Richoux
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5431)


Constraint Satisfaction Problems (csp) constitute a convenient way to capture many combinatorial problems. The general csp is known to be NP-complete, but its complexity depends on a parameter, usually a set of relations, upon which they are constructed. Following the parameter, there exist tractable and intractable instances of csps. In this paper we show a dichotomy theorem for every finite domain of csp including also disjunctions. This dichotomy condition is based on a simple condition, allowing us to classify monotone csps as tractable or NP-complete. We also prove that the meta-problem, verifying the tractability condition for monotone constraint satisfaction problems, is fixed-parameter tractable. Moreover, we present a polynomial-time algorithm to answer this question for monotone csps over ternary domains.


Computational Complexity Constant Function Unary Function Domain Size Constraint Satisfaction Problem 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bulatov, A.A.: A dichotomy theorem for constraint satisfaction problems on a 3-element set. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 53(1), 66–120 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen, D., Jeavons, P., Jonsson, P., Koubarakis, M.: Building tractable disjunctive constraints. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 47(5), 826–853 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parametrized Complexity. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feder, T., Vardi, M.Y.: The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: a study through Datalog and group theory. SIAM Journal on Computing 28(1), 57–104 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jeavons, P.: On the algebraic structure of combinatorial problems. Theoretical Computer Science 200(1-2), 185–204 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krasner, M.: Une généralisation de la notion de corps. Journal de Mathématiques pures et appliquées 17, 367–385 (1938)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pöschel, R.: Galois connections for operations and relations. In: Denecke, K., et al. (eds.) Galois Connections and Applications, pp. 231–258. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salomaa, A.: Composition sequences for functions over a finite domain. Theoretical Computer Science 292(1), 263–281 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaefer, T.J.: The complexity of satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings 10th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1978), San Diego, California, USA, pp. 216–226 (1978)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yanov, Y.I., Muchnik, A.A.: On the existence of k-valued closed classes that have no bases. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 127, 44–46 (1959) (in Russian)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miki Hermann
    • 1
  • Florian Richoux
    • 1
  1. 1.LIX (CNRS, UMR 7161), École PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations