skip to main content
research-article

Generalized hypertree decompositions: NP-hardness and tractable variants

Published:08 September 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The generalized hypertree width GHW(H) of a hypergraph H is a measure of its cyclicity. Classes of conjunctive queries or constraint satisfaction problems whose associated hypergraphs have bounded GHW are known to be solvable in polynomial time. However, it has been an open problem for several years if for a fixed constant k and input hypergraph H it can be determined in polynomial time whether GHW(H) ≤ k. Here, this problem is settled by proving that even for k = 3 the problem is already NP-hard. On the way to this result, another long standing open problem, originally raised by Goodman and Shmueli [1984] in the context of join optimization is solved. It is proven that determining whether a hypergraph H admits a tree projection with respect to a hypergraph G is NP-complete. Our intractability results on generalized hypertree width motivate further research on more restrictive tractable hypergraph decomposition methods that approximate generalized hypertree decomposition (GHD). We show that each such method is dominated by a tractable decomposition method definable through a function that associates a set of partial edges to a hypergraph. By using one particular such function, we define the new Component Hypertree Decomposition method, which is tractable and strictly more general than other approximations to GHD published so far.

References

  1. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Adler, I. 2004. Marshals, monotone marshals, and hypertree-width. J. Graph Theory 47, 4, 275--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Adler, I. 2006. Width functions for hypertree decompositions. Ph.D. dissertation. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Adler, I., Gottlob, G., and Grohe, M. 2005. Hypertree-width and related hypergraph invariants. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Applications (EUROCOMB'05). DMTCS Proceedings Series, vol. AE. 5--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnborg, S. 1985. Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded decomposability—A survey. BIT 25, 2--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Arnborg, S., Lagergren, J., and Seese, D. 1991. Easy problems for tree decomposable graphs. J. Algor. 12, 2 (Jun), 308--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Beeri, C., Fagin, R., Maier, D., and Yannakakis, M. 1983. On the desirability of acyclic database schemes. J. ACM 30, 3, 479--513. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Chandra, A. K., and Merlin, P. M. 1977. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational databases. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'77). ACM, New York, 77--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Chang, C.-L., and Lee, R. C.-T. 1973. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Chekuri, C., and Rajaraman, A. 2000. Conjunctive query containment revisited. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 239, 2, 211--229. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Cohen, D., Jeavons, P., and Gyssens, M. 2008. A unified theory of structural tractability for constraint satisfaction problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74, 5 (Aug.), 721--743. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Cohen, D. A., Jeavons, P., and Gyssens, M. 2005. A unified theory of structural tractability for constraint satisfaction and spread cut decomposition. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 72--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Courcelle, B. 1990. Graph rewriting: An algebraic and logic approach. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 193--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Downey, R. G., and Fellows, M. R. 1999. Parameterized Complexity. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Flum, J., Frick, M., and Grohe, M. 2002. Query evaluation via tree-decompositions. J. ACM 49, 6, 716--752. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Flum, J., and Grohe, M. 2006. Parameterized Complexity Theory. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gavril, F. 1974. The intersection graphs of subtrees in trees are exactly the chordal graphs. J. Comb. Theory Series B 16, 47--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Golumbic, M. C., Kaplan, H., and Shamir, R. 1995. Graph sandwich problems. J. Algor. 19, 449--473. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Golumbic, M. C., and Wassermann, A. 1998. Complexity and algorithms for graph and hypergraph sandwich problems. Graphs Combinat. 14, 223--239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Goodman, N., and Shmueli, O. 1983. Syntactic characterization of tree database schemas. J. ACM 30, 4, 767--786. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Goodman, N., and Shmueli, O. 1984. The tree projection theorem and relational query processing. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 28, 1, 60--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Gottlob, G., and Greco, G. 2007. On the complexity of combinatorial auctions: Structured item graphs and hypertree decomposition. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. ACM, New York, 152--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Gottlob, G., Greco, G., Miklós, Z., Scarcello, F., and Schwentick, T. 2009. Graph Theory, Computational Intelligence and Thought. Essays Dedicated to Martin Charles Golumbic on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5420. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, Chapter Tree Projections: Game Characterization and Computational Aspects, 87--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. 2000. A comparison of structural CSP decomposition methods. Artif. Intell. 124, 2, 243--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. 2001. The complexity of acyclic conjunctive queries. J. ACM 48, 3, 431--498. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. 2002. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. (JCSS) 64, 3 (May), 579--627.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. 2003. Robbers, marshals, and guards: Game theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. (JCSS) 66, 4, 775--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Gottlob, G., Pichler, R., and Wei, F. 2006. Bounded treewidth as a key to tractability of knowledge representation and reasoning. In Proceedings of AAAI 2006. AAAI Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Greco, G., and Scarcello, F. 2008. Tree projections: Hypergraph games and minimality. In Proceedings of the 35th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5125, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 736--747. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Grohe, M., and Marx, D. 2006. Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. In Proceedings of the ACM SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). ACM, New York, 289--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kolaitis, P. G., and Vardi, M. Y. 2000. Conjunctive query containment and constraint satisfaction. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 61, 302--332. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Lustig, A., and Shmueli, O. 1999. Acyclic hypergraph projections. J. Algor. 30, 2, 400--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Marx, D. 2009. Approximating fractional hypetree width. In Proceedings of the ACM SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'09). ACM, New York, 902--911. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Robertson, N., and Seymour, P. D. 1986. Graph minors. II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. J. Algor. 7, 309--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Saccà, D. 1985. Closures of database hypergraphs. J. ACM 32, 4 (Oct.), 774--803. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Sagiv, Y., and Shmueli, O. 1993. Solving queries by tree projections. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 18, 3, 487--511. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Scarcello, F., Greco, G., and Leone, N. 2004. Weighted hypertree decompositions and optimal query plans. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM, New York, 210--221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yannakakis, M. 1981. Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In Proceedings of the International Coference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB'81), 82--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Generalized hypertree decompositions: NP-hardness and tractable variants

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image Journal of the ACM
              Journal of the ACM  Volume 56, Issue 6
              September 2009
              190 pages
              ISSN:0004-5411
              EISSN:1557-735X
              DOI:10.1145/1568318
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2009 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 8 September 2009
              • Revised: 1 November 2008
              • Accepted: 1 November 2008
              • Received: 1 December 2007
              Published in jacm Volume 56, Issue 6

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader