Advertisement

From Backdoor Key to Backdoor Completability: Improving a Known Measure of Hardness for the Satisfiable CSP

  • Guillaume Escamocher
  • Mohamed Siala
  • Barry O’Sullivan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10848)

Abstract

Many studies have been conducted on the complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) classes. However, there exists little theoretical work on the hardness of individual CSP instances. In this context, the backdoor key fraction (BKF) [17] was introduced as a quantifier of problem hardness for individual satisfiable instances with regard to backtracking search. In our paper, after highlighting the weaknesses of the BKF, we propose a better characterization of the hardness of an individual satisfiable CSP instance based on the ratio between the size of the solution space and that of the search space. We formally show that our measure is negatively correlated with instance hardness. We also show through experiments that this measure evaluates more accurately the hardness of individual instances than the BKF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289.

References

  1. 1.
    Achlioptas, D., Gomes, C.P., Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Generating satisfiable problem instances. In: Proceedings of AAAI, IAAI, Austin, Texas, USA, 30 July–3 August 2000, pp. 256–261 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodlaender, H.L.: A linear-time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. SIAM J. Comput. 25(6), 1305–1317 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, New York City/Burlington (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Escamocher, G., O’Sullivan, B.: On the minimal constraint satisfaction problem: complexity and generation. In: Lu, Z., Kim, D., Wu, W., Li, W., Du, D.-Z. (eds.) COCOA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9486, pp. 731–745. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26626-8_54CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freuder, E.C.: A sufficient condition for backtrack-free search. J. ACM 29(1), 24–32 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freuder, E.C.: Complexity of K-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of AAAI, Boston, Massachusetts, 29 July–3 August 1990, vol. 2, pp. 4–9 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freuder, E.C.: Completable representations of constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of KR, Cambridge, MA, USA, 22–25 April 1991, pp. 186–195 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganian, R., Ramanujan, M.S., Szeider, S.: Combining treewidth and backdoors for CSP. In: 34th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 2017, Hannover, Germany, 8–11 March 2017, pp. 36:1–36:17 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gent, I.P., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Walsh, T.: The constrainedness of search. In: Proceedings of AAAI, IAAI, Portland, Oregon, 4–8 August 1996, vol. 1, pp. 246–252 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomes, C.P., Fernández, C., Selman, B., Bessière, C.: Statistical regimes across constrainedness regions. Constraints 10(4), 317–337 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hebrard, E.: Mistral, a constraint satisfaction library. In: Proceedings of the Third International CSP Solver Competition, vol. 3, p. 3 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kautz, H.A., Ruan, Y., Achlioptas, D., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Stickel, M.E.: Balance and filtering in structured satisfiable problems. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, Seattle, Washington, USA, 4–10 August 2001, pp. 351–358 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larrosa, J., Schiex, T.: Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artif. Intell. 159(1–2), 1–26 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    López-Ortiz, A., Quimper, C., Tromp, J., van Beek, P.: A fast and simple algorithm for bounds consistency of the alldifferent constraint. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 August 2003, pp. 245–250 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monasson, R., Zecchina, R., Kirkpatrick, S., Selman, B., Troyansky, L.: Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’. Nature 400(8), 133–137 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montanari, U.: Networks of constraints: fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Inf. Sci. 7, 95–132 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruan, Y., Kautz, H.A., Horvitz, E.: The backdoor key: a path to understanding problem hardness. In: Proceedings of AAAI, IAAI, San Jose, California, USA, 25–29 July 2004, pp. 124–130 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valiant, L.G., Vazirani, V.V.: NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 47(3), 85–93 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(86)90135-0MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams, R., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Backdoors to typical case complexity. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 August 2003, pp. 1173–1178 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Escamocher
    • 1
  • Mohamed Siala
    • 1
  • Barry O’Sullivan
    • 1
  1. 1.Insight Centre for Data Analytics, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations