Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural tractability of enumerating CSP solutions

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of deciding whether CSP instances admit solutions has been deeply studied in the literature, and several structural tractability results have been derived so far. However, constraint satisfaction comes in practice as a computation problem where the focus is either on finding one solution, or on enumerating all solutions, possibly projected to some given set of output variables. The paper investigates the structural tractability of the problem of enumerating (possibly projected) solutions, where tractability means here computable with polynomial delay (WPD), since in general exponentially many solutions may be computed. A framework based on the notion of tree projection of hypergraphs is considered, which generalizes all structural decomposition methods that are based on decomposing a given instance into suitable tree-like groups of polynomial-time computable subproblems. Tractability results have been obtained both for classes of structures where output variables are part of their specification, and for classes of structures where computability WPD must be ensured for any possible set of output variables. By exhibiting dichotomies, these results are shown to be tight for classes of structures having bounded arity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adler, I. (2008). Tree-related widths of graphs and hypergraphs. SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 22(1), 102–123.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Adler, I. (2008). Tree-width and functional dependencies in databases. In Proc. of PODS’08 (pp. 311–320).

  3. Atserias, A., Bulatov, A., Dalmau, V. (2007). On the power of k-consistency. In Proc. of ICALP’07 (pp. 279–290).

  4. Atserias, A., Grohe, M., Marx, D. (2008). Size bounds and query plans for relational joins. In Proc. of FOCS’08 (pp. 739–748).

  5. Bagan, G. (2006). Mso queries on tree decomposable structures are computable with linear delay. In Proc. of CSL’06 (pp. 208–222).

  6. Bagan, G., Durand, A., Grandjean, E. (2007). On acyclic conjunctive queries and constant delay enumeration. In Proc. of CSL’07 (pp. 208–222).

  7. Bagan, G., Durand, A., Grandjean, E., Olive, F. (2008). Computing the jth solution of a first-order query. RAIRO Theoretical Informatics and Applications, 42(1), 147–164.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernstein, P.A., & Goodman, N. (1981). The power of natural semijoins. SIAM Journal on Computing, 10(4), 751–771.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bessiere, C., & Regin, J.-C. (1997). Arc consistency for general constraint networks: preliminary results. In Proc. of IJCAI’97 (pp. 398–404).

  10. Bulatov, A., Dalmau, V., Grohe, M., Marx, D. (2012). Enumerating homomorphisms. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 78(2), 638–650.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, H., & Dalmau, V. (2005). Beyond hypertree width: Decomposition methods without decompositions. In Proc. of CP’05 (pp. 167–181).

  12. Cohen, D.A. (2004). Tractable decision for a constraint language implies tractable search. Constraints, 9(3), 219–229.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, D., Jeavons, P., Gyssens, M. (2008). A unified theory of structural tractability for constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 74(5), 721–743.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Creignou, N., & Hébrard, J.-J. (1997). On generating all solutions of generalized satsifiability problems. RAIRO Theoretical Informatics and Applications, 31(6), 499–511.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Creignou, N., Olive, F., Schmidt, J. (2011). Enumerating all solutions of a Boolean CSP by non-decreasing weight. In Proc. of the 14th international conference on theory and application of satisfiability testing (SAT’11) (pp. 120–133).

  16. Courcelle, B. (1990). Graph rewriting: An algebraic and logic approach. In Handbook of theoretical computer science, volume B: formal models and sematics (pp. 193–242).

  17. Courcelle, B. (2009). Linear delay enumeration and monadic second-order logic. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 157(12), 2675–2700.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Courcelle, B., & Mosbah, M. (1993). Monadic second-order evaluations on tree-decomposable graphs. Theoretical Computer Science, 109(1–2), 49–82.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Dalmau, V., & Jonsson, P. (2004). The complexity of counting homomorphisms seen from the other side. Theoretical Computer Science, 329(1–3), 315–323.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Dechter, R., & Itai, A. (1992). Finding all solutions if you can find one. In Proc. of AAAI’92 workshop on tractable reasoning (pp. 35–39).

  21. Dechter, R., & Pearl, J. (1989). Tree clustering for constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 38(3), 353–366.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Downey, R.G., & Fellows, M.R. (1999). Parameterized complexity. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Durand, A., & Grandjean, E. (2007). First-order queries on structures of bounded degree are computable with constant delay. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 8(4), Article No. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Flum, J., Frick, M., Grohe, M. (2002). Query evaluation via tree-decompositions. Journal of the ACM, 49(6), 716–752.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Freuder, E.C. (1990). Complexity of K-tree structured constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of the 8th national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 4–9).

  26. Frick, M., & Grohe, M. (2004). The complexity of first-order and monadic second-order logic revisited. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 130(1–3), 3–31.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Goodman, N., & Shmueli, O. (1984). The tree projection theorem and relational query processing. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 29(3), 767–786.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., Scarcello, F. (2000). A comparison of structural CSP decomposition methods. Artificial Intelligence, 124(2), 243–282.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., Scarcello, F. (2002). Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 64(3), 579–627.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., Scarcello, F. (2003). Robbers, marshals, and guards: game theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 66(4), 775–808.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Gottlob, G., Miklós, Z., Schwentick, T. (2009). Generalized hypertree decompositions: NP-hardness and tractable variants. Journal of the ACM, 56(6), Article No. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gottlob, G., Pichler, R., Wei, F. (2010). Monadic datalog over finite structures with bounded treewidth. Association for Computing Machinery Transactions on Computational Logic, 12(1), 3.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Greco, G., & Scarcello, F. (2010). The power of tree projections: Local consistency, greedy algorithms, and larger islands of tractability. In Proc. of PODS’10 (pp. 327–338).

  34. Greco, G., & Scarcello, F. (2011). Structural tractability of constraint optimization. In Proc. of CP’11 (pp. 2340–355).

  35. Greco, G., & Scarcello, F. (2012). Tree projections and structural decomposition methods: the power of local consistency and larger islands of tractability. CoRR Technical report available at arXiv:1205.3321.

  36. Grohe, M. (2007). The complexity of homomorphism and constraint satisfaction problems seen from the other side. Journal of the ACM, 54(1), Article No. 1.

  37. Grohe, M., & Marx, D. (2006). Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. In Proc. of SODA’06 (pp. 289–298).

  38. Grohe, M., Schwentick, T., Segoufin, L. (2001). When is the evaluation of conjunctive queries tractable? In Proc. of STOC’01 (pp. 657–666).

  39. Kazana, W., & Segoufin, L. (2011). First-order query evaluation on structures of bounded degree. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 7(2), Article No. 20.

  40. Kimelfeld, B., & Sagiv, Y. (2006). Incrementally computing ordered answers of acyclic conjunctive formulas. In Proc. of NGITS’06 (pp. 33–38).

  41. Koch, C. (2006). Processing queries on tree-structured data efficiently. In Proc. of PODS’06 (pp. 213–224).

  42. Kolaitis, P.G., & Vardi, M.Y. (1998). Conjunctive-query containment and constraint satisfaction. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 61(2), 302–332.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Lawler, E.L. (1972). A procedure for computing the k best solutions to discrete opti mization problems and its application to the shortest path problem. Management Science, 18, 401–405.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Marx, D. (2010). Tractable hypergraph properties for constraint satisfaction and conjunctive queries. In Proc. of STOC’10 (pp. 735–744).

  45. Marx, D. (2010). Approximating fractional hypertree width. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 6(2), Article No. 29.

  46. Pichler, R., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S. (2010). Counting and enumeration problems with bounded treewidth. In Proc. of LPAR’10 (pp. 387–404).

  47. Robertson, N., & Seymour, P.D. (1984). Graph minors III: planar tree-width. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 36, 49–64.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Robertson, N., & Seymour, P.D. (1986). Graph minors V: excluding a planar graph. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 41, 92–114.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosati, R. (2011). On the finite controllability of conjunctive query answering in databases under open-world assumption. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 77(3), 572–594.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Saccà, D., Serra, E., Guzzo, A. (2012). Count constraints and the inverse OLAP problem: Definition, complexity and a step toward aggregate data exchange. In Proc. of FoIKS’12 (pp. 352–369).

  51. Sagiv, Y., & Shmueli, O. (1993). Solving queries by tree projections. ACM Transaction on Database Systems, 18(3), 487–511.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Scarcello, F., Gottlob, G., Greco, G. (2008). Uniform constraint satisfaction problems and database theory. In Complexity of constraints (pp. 156–195). Springer.

  53. Schnoor, H., & Schnoor, I. (2007). Enumerating all solutions for constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of the STACS’07 (pp. 694–705).

  54. Yannakakis, M. (1981). Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In Proc. of VLDB’81 (pp. 82–94).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, University of Calabria, 87036, Rende (CS), Italy

    Gianluigi Greco

  2. DEIS, University of Calabria, 87036, Rende (CS), Italy

    Francesco Scarcello

Authors
  1. Gianluigi Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Scarcello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianluigi Greco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greco, G., Scarcello, F. Structural tractability of enumerating CSP solutions. Constraints 18, 38–74 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-012-9129-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-012-9129-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation