Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2107.13809

Generalisations of Matrix Partitions : Complexity and Obstructions

Abstract

A trigraph is a graph where each pair of vertices is labelled either 0 (a non-arc), 1 (an arc) or $\star$ (both an arc and a non-arc). In a series of papers, Hell and co-authors proposed to study the complexity of homomorphisms from graphs to trigraphs, called Matrix Partition Problems, where arcs and non-arcs can be both mapped to $\star$-arcs, while a non-arc cannot be mapped to an arc, and vice-versa. Even though Matrix Partition Problems are generalisations of CSPs, they share with them the property of being ``intrinsically'' combinatorial. So, the question of a possible P-time vs NP-complete dichotomy is a very natural one and was raised in Hell et al.'s papers. We propose a generalisation of Matrix Partitions to relational structures and study them with respect to the question of a dichotomy. We first show that trigraph homomorphisms and Matrix Partitions are P-time equivalent, and then prove that one can also restrict (with respect to having a dichotomy) to relational structures with a single relation. Failing in proving that Matrix Partitions on directed graphs are not P-time equivalent to Matrix Partitions on relational structures, we give some evidence that it might be unlikely by formalising the reductions used in the case of CSPs and by showing that such reductions cannot work for the case of Matrix Partitions. We then turn our attention to Matrix Partitions that can be described by finite sets of (induced-subgraph) obstructions. We show, in particular, that any such problem has finitely many minimal obstructions if and only if it has finite duality. We conclude by showing that on trees (seen as trigraphs) it is NP-complete to decide whether a given tree has a homomorphism to another input trigraph. The latter shows a notable difference on tractability between CSP and Matrix Partitions as it is well-known that CSP is tractable on the class of trees.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alexey Barsukov, Mamadou Moustapha Kanté. 2024-06-04. Generalisations of Matrix Partitions : Complexity and Obstructions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2024.114652

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC