scholarly journals A Note on the Asymptotics and Computational Complexity of Graph Distinguishability

10.37236/1361 ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Russell ◽  
Ravi Sundaram

A graph $G$ is said to be $d$-distinguishable if there is a $d$-coloring of $G$ which no non-trivial automorphism preserves. That is, $\exists \chi: G \rightarrow \{1, \ldots, d\},$ $$ \forall \phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(G) \setminus \{\mathbf{id}\}, \exists v, \chi(v) \neq \chi(\phi(v)). $$ It was conjectured that if $|G| > |\mathrm{Aut}(G)|$ and the $\mathrm{Aut}(G)$ action on $G$ has no singleton orbits, then $G$ is 2-distinguishable. We give an example where this fails. We partially repair the conjecture by showing that when "enough motion occurs," the distinguishing number does indeed decay. Specifically, defining $$ {\mathrm{m} }(G) = \min_{{\phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(G)} \atop {\phi \neq \mathbf{id}}} |\{v \in G \;:\;\phi(v) \neq v\}|, $$ we show that when ${\mathrm{m}}(G) > 2\log_2 |\mathrm{Aut}(G)|$, $G$ is 2-distinguishable. In general, we show that if $ {\mathrm{m}}(G)\ln d > 2\ln |\mathrm{Aut}(G)|$ then $G$ is $d$-distinguishable. There has been considerable interest in the computational complexity of the $d$-distinguishability problem. Specifically, there has been much musing on the computational complexity of the language $$ \{(G, d)\; : \; G \text{ is $d$-distinguishable}\}. $$ We show that this language lies in AM $\subset \Sigma_2^P \cap \Pi_2^P$. We use this to conclude that if Dist is $\mathbf{coNP}$-hard then the polynomial hierarchy collapses.

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (suppl 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Jost Brod

Recent years have seen a flurry of activity in the fields of quantum computing and quantum complexity theory, which aim to understand the computational capabilities of quantum systems by applying the toolbox of computational complexity theory. This paper explores the conceptually rich and technologically useful connection between the dynamics of free quantum particles and complexity theory. I review results on the computational power of two simple quantum systems, built out of noninteracting bosons (linear optics) or noninteracting fermions. These rudimentary quantum computers display radically different capabilities—while free fermions are easy to simulate on a classical computer, and therefore devoid of nontrivial computational power, a free-boson computer can perform tasks expected to be classically intractable. To build the argument for these results, I introduce concepts from computational complexity theory. I describe some complexity classes, starting with P and NP and building up to the less common #P and polynomial hierarchy, and the relations between them. I identify how probabilities in free-bosonic and free-fermionic systems fit within this classification, which then underpins their difference in computational power. This paper is aimed at graduate or advanced undergraduate students with a Physics background, hopefully serving as a soft introduction to this exciting and highly evolving field.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bichler ◽  
Stefan Waldherr

The computation of market equilibria is a fundamental and practically relevant problem. Although we know the computational complexity and the types of price functions necessary for combinatorial exchanges with quasilinear preferences, the respective literature does not consider financially constrained buyers. We show that computing market outcomes that respect budget constraints but are core stable is a problem in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Problems in this complexity class are rare, but ignoring budget constraints can lead to significant efficiency losses and instability. We introduce mixed integer bilevel linear programs (MIBLP) to compute core-stable market outcomes and provide effective column and constraint generation algorithms to solve these problems. Although full core stability quickly becomes intractable, we show that realistic problem sizes can actually be solved if the designer limits attention to deviations of small coalitions. This n-coalition stability is a practical approach to tame the computational complexity of the general problem and at the same time provides a reasonable level of stability for markets in the field where buyers have budget constraints.


1998 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 423-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Rintanen

In default reasoning, usually not all possible ways of resolving conflicts between default rules are acceptable. Criteria expressing acceptable ways of resolving the conflicts may be hardwired in the inference mechanism, for example specificity in inheritance reasoning can be handled this way, or they may be given abstractly as an ordering on the default rules. In this article we investigate formalizations of the latter approach in Reiter's default logic. Our goal is to analyze and compare the computational properties of three such formalizations in terms of their computational complexity: the prioritized default logics of Baader and Hollunder, and Brewka, and a prioritized default logic that is based on lexicographic comparison. The analysis locates the propositional variants of these logics on the second and third levels of the polynomial hierarchy, and identifies the boundary between tractable and intractable inference for restricted classes of prioritized default theories.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 826-840
Author(s):  
WOLFGANG FABER ◽  
MICHAEL MORAK ◽  
STEFAN WOLTRAN

AbstractEpistemic Logic Programs (ELPs) extend Answer Set Programming (ASP) with epistemic negation and have received renewed interest in recent years. This led to the development of new research and efficient solving systems for ELPs. In practice, ELPs are often written in a modular way, where each module interacts with other modules by accepting sets of facts as input, and passing on sets of facts as output. An interesting question then presents itself: under which conditions can such a module be replaced by another one without changing the outcome, for any set of input facts? This problem is known as uniform equivalence, and has been studied extensively for ASP. For ELPs, however, such an investigation is, as of yet, missing. In this paper, we therefore propose a characterization of uniform equivalence that can be directly applied to the language of state-of-the-art ELP solvers. We also investigate the computational complexity of deciding uniform equivalence for two ELPs, and show that it is on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 1-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes P. Wallner ◽  
Andreas Niskanen ◽  
Matti Järvisalo

Argumentation is an active area of modern artificial intelligence (AI) research, with connections to a range of fields, from computational complexity theory and knowledge representation and reasoning to philosophy and social sciences, as well as application-oriented work in domains such as legal reasoning, multi-agent systems, and decision support. Argumentation frameworks (AFs) of abstract argumentation have become the graph-based formal model of choice for many approaches to argumentation in AI, with semantics defining sets of jointly acceptable arguments, i.e., extensions. Understanding the dynamics of AFs has been recently recognized as an important topic in the study of argumentation in AI. In this work, we focus on the so-called extension enforcement problem in abstract argumentation as a recently proposed form of argumentation dynamics. We provide a nearly complete computational complexity map of argument-fixed extension enforcement under various major AF semantics, with results ranging from polynomial-time algorithms to completeness for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Complementing the complexity results, we propose algorithms for NP-hard extension enforcement based on constraint optimization under the maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) paradigm. Going beyond NP, we propose novel MaxSAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement procedures for the second-level complete problems and present empirical results on a prototype system constituting the first approach to extension enforcement in its generality.


Author(s):  
Nico Potyka

Bipolar abstract argumentation frameworks allow modeling decision problems by defining pro and contra arguments and their relationships. In some popular bipolar frameworks, there is an inherent tendency to favor either attack or support relationships. However, for some applications, it seems sensible to treat attack and support equally. Roughly speaking, turning an attack edge into a support edge, should just invert its meaning. We look at a recently introduced bipolar argumentation semantics and two novel alternatives and discuss their semantical and computational properties. Interestingly, the two novel semantics correspond to stable semantics if no support relations are present and maintain the computational complexity of stable semantics in general bipolar frameworks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document