Publication | Closed Access
On Problems as Hard as CNF-SAT
114
Citations
23
References
2016
Year
Theory Of ComputingComputational Complexity TheoryEngineeringGrowth Rate 2Automated ReasoningAlgebraic ComplexityTime OSat SolvingComputational ComplexityTime ComplexityComputer ScienceOptimal Growth RateComputational ProblemCombinatorial OptimizationSatisfiabilityExponential Algorithm
The field of exact exponential time algorithms for non-deterministic polynomial-time hard problems has thrived since the mid-2000s. While exhaustive search remains asymptotically the fastest known algorithm for some basic problems, non-trivial exponential time algorithms have been found for a myriad of problems, including G raph C oloring , H amiltonian P ath , D ominating S et , and 3-CNF-S at . In some instances, improving these algorithms further seems to be out of reach. The CNF-S at problem is the canonical example of a problem for which the trivial exhaustive search algorithm runs in time O (2 n ), where n is the number of variables in the input formula. While there exist non-trivial algorithms for CNF-S at that run in time o (2 n ), no algorithm was able to improve the growth rate 2 to a smaller constant, and hence it is natural to conjecture that 2 is the optimal growth rate. The strong exponential time hypothesis (SETH) by Impagliazzo and Paturi [JCSS 2001] goes a little bit further and asserts that, for every ϵ < 1, there is a (large) integer k such that k -CNF-S at cannot be computed in time 2 ϵ n . In this article, we show that, for every ϵ < 1, the problems H itting S et , S et S plitting , and NAE-S at cannot be computed in time O (2 ϵ n ) unless SETH fails. Here n is the number of elements or variables in the input. For these problems, we actually get an equivalence to SETH in a certain sense. We conjecture that SETH implies a similar statement for S et C over and prove that, under this assumption, the fastest known algorithms for S teiner T ree , C onnected V ertex C over , S et P artitioning , and the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm for S ubset S um cannot be significantly improved. Finally, we justify our assumption about the hardness of S et C over by showing that the parity of the number of solutions to S et C over cannot be computed in time O (2 ϵ n ) for any ϵ < 1 unless SETH fails.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1