Functional Treewidth: Bounding Complexity in the Presence of Functional Dependencies

  • Yuliya Zabiyaka
  • Adnan Darwiche
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4121)


Many reasoning problems in logic and constraint satisfaction have been shown to be exponential only in the treewidth of their interaction graph: a graph which captures the structural interactions among variables in a problem. It has long been observed in both logic and constraint satisfaction, however, that problems may be easy even when their treewidth is quite high. To bridge some of the gap between theoretical bounds and actual runtime, we propose a complexity parameter, called functional treewidth, which refines treewidth by being sensitive to non–structural aspects of a problem: functional dependencies in particular. This measure dominates treewidth and can be used to bound the size of CNF compilations, which permit a variety of queries in polytime, including clausal implication, existential quantification, and model counting. We present empirical results which show how the new measure can predict the complexity of certain benchmarks, that would have been considered quite difficult based on treewidth alone.


Bayesian Network Leaf Node Functional Dependency Internal Node Constraint Satisfaction 
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.
    Arnborg, S., Corneil, D.G., Proskurowski, A.: Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM J. Algebraic and Discrete Methods 8, 277–284 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodlaender, H.L.: A tourist guide through treewidth. Acta Cybernetica 11(1-2), 1–22 (1993)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darwiche, A.: Decomposable negation normal form. Journal of the ACM 48(4), 608–647 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darwiche, A.: On the tractability of counting theory models and its application to belief revision and truth maintenance. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 11(1-2), 11–34 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darwiche, A.: A logical approach to factoring belief networks. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 409–420 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darwiche, A., Hopkins, M.: Using recursive decomposition to construct elimination orders, jointrees and dtrees. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 180–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darwiche, A., Marquis, P.: A knowledge compilation map. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 17, 229–264 (2002)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, F.V., Lauritzen, S.L., Olesen, K.G.: Bayesian updating in recursive graphical models by local computation. Computational Statistics Quarterly 4, 269–282 (1990)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lucchesi, C.L., Osborn, S.L.: Candidate keys for relations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 17, 270–279 (1978)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maier, D.: The Theory of Relational Databases. Computer Science Press, Rockville (1983)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors II: Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. J. Algorithms 7, 309–322 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sang, T., Beam, P., Kautz, H.: Solving bayesian networks by weighted model counting. In: Proceedings of AAAI, AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuliya Zabiyaka
    • 1
  • Adnan Darwiche
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations