1: \newif\ifmakebbl

2: %\makebbltrue

3: %

4: % Format for letter paper !!  

5: %

6: 

7: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

8: \usepackage[english]{babel}

9: \selectlanguage{english}

10: \usepackage{epic,eepic}%,eclbip,ecltree}

11: \usepackage{epsfig}

12: \usepackage{latexsym}

13: \usepackage{times}

14: \usepackage{theorem}

15: %\usepackage{supertabular}

16: 

17: 

18: \newcommand{\tuple}[1]{\langle#1\rangle} 

19: 

20: %%%% Georg's Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%

21: 

22: \newcommand{\efi}{\epsilon^{\gvp}_i}

23: \newcommand{\egi}{\epsilon^{\psi}_i}

24: \newcommand{\ev}{\epsilon(v)}

25: \newcommand{\evar}[1]{\epsilon(#1)}

26: 

27: %%% Skips macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

28: 

29: \newcommand{\nbls}{\vspace*{-1\baselineskip}}

30: \newcommand{\hnbls}{\vspace*{-.5\baselineskip}}

31: \newcommand{\tnbls}{\vspace*{-.33\baselineskip}}

32: \newcommand{\qnbls}{\vspace*{-.25\baselineskip}}

33: \newcommand{\bls}{\vspace*{1\baselineskip}}

34: \newcommand{\hbls}{\vspace*{.5\baselineskip}}

35: \newcommand{\tbls}{\vspace*{.33\baselineskip}}

36: \newcommand{\qbls}{\vspace*{.25\baselineskip}}

37: 

38: %%%%%%%% Kaz %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: 

40: \newcommand{\qed}[0]{\hspace*{0mm}\hfill $\Box$\vspace{3mm}}

41: \newcommand{\ol}[1]{{\overline#1}}

42: \newcommand{\proof}{\noindent {\bf Proof}.\ }

43: 

44: \newcommand{\raf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

45: 

46: \newcommand{\OR}{\bigvee}

47: \newcommand{\AN}{\bigwedge}

48: 

49: %\newcommand{\hspacea}{\hspace*{.57cm}}

50: %\newcommand{\hspaceb}{\hspace*{.92cm}}

51: %\newcommand{\hspacec}{\hspace*{1.2cm}}

52: %\newcommand{\hspaced}{\hspace*{1.74cm}}

53: %\newcommand{\hspacee}{\hspace*{2.28cm}}

54: %\newcommand{\hspacef}{\hspace*{2.58cm}}

55: % Full left alignment

56: \newcommand{\hspacea}{\hspace*{0cm}}

57: \newcommand{\hspaceb}{\hspace*{.35cm}}

58: \newcommand{\hspacec}{\hspace*{.45cm}}

59: \newcommand{\hspaced}{\hspace*{1.15cm}}

60: \newcommand{\hspacee}{\hspace*{1.71cm}}

61: \newcommand{\hspacef}{\hspace*{2.01cm}}

62: 

63: 

64: 

65: \newcommand{\cS}{{\cal S}}

66: \newcommand{\cF}{{\cal F}}

67: \newcommand{\cC}{{\cal C}}

68: \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}

69: \newcommand{\cA}{{\cal A}}

70: \newcommand{\cB}{{\cal B}}

71: 

72: \newcommand{\ga}{\alpha}

73: \newcommand{\gb}{\beta}

74: \newcommand{\gc}{\gamma}

75: \newcommand{\gd}{\delta}

76: \newcommand{\gD}{\Delta}

77: \newcommand{\gG}{{\it PI}}

78: \newcommand{\gve}{\varepsilon}

79: \newcommand{\gvp}{\varphi}

80: \newcommand{\Tw}{{\it Tw}}

81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Georg:

82: 

83: \newcommand{\np}{{\rm NP}}

84: \newcommand{\NP}{{\rm NP}}

85: \newcommand{\coNP}{\textrm{co-NP}}

86: \newcommand{\pol}{{\rm P}}

87: \newcommand{\Pol}{{\rm P}}

88: \newcommand{\nondet}[1]{{#1\textrm{-}\Pol}}

89: \newcommand{\betapol}[1]{{\beta_{#1}\Pol}}

90: \newcommand{\cobetapol}[1]{{{\rm co}\textrm{-}\beta_{#1}\Pol}}

91: 

92: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mathit{Tr}}

93: 

94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

95: 

96: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

97: \newtheorem{example}{Example}[section]

98: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

99: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

100: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

101: \newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}[section]

102: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[section]

103: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]

104: 

105: %%%% standard values

106: \global\setlength\theorempreskipamount{12pt plus 5pt minus 3pt}

107: \global\setlength\theorempostskipamount{8pt plus 3pt minus 1.5pt}

108: %%% other values

109: %\global\setlength\theorempreskipamount{8pt plus 4pt minus 3pt}

110: %\global\setlength\theorempostskipamount{3pt plus 2pt minus 1.5pt}

111: 

112: \newcommand{\nop}[1]{}

113: 

114: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}

115: 

116: \oddsidemargin 0 pt       % Left margin on odd-numbered pages.

117: %\oddsidemargin  .137in       % Left margin for letter paper

118: \evensidemargin=\oddsidemargin

119: 

120: \marginparwidth  0 pt     % Width of marginal notes.

121: \topmargin  0 in          % Nominal distance from top of page to top of

122: %\addtolength{\topmargin}{\baselineskip}

123: \footskip 30pt

124: \textheight 8.5in         % Height of text (including

125:                           % footnotes/figures)

126: %\addtolength{\textheight}{1.9\baselineskip}                          

127: %\textwidth 6.5in          % Width of text line.

128: \textwidth 6.25in          % Width of text line.

129: 

130: \fboxsep 1mm

131: \fboxrule .2mm

132: \fboxsep 1mm

133: \fboxrule .2mm

134: %****}

135: 

136: \newcounter{myenumctr}

137: 

138: \newenvironment{myenumerate}{\begin{list}{\arabic{myenumctr}.}{\usecounter{myenumctr}

139: \setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}

140: \setlength{\itemindent}{\labelwidth}}}

141: {\end{list}}

142: 

143: \newenvironment{myitemize}{\begin{list}{$\bullet$}{\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}

144: \setlength{\itemindent}{\labelwidth}}}

145: {\end{list}}

146: 

147: %%%%%%%%%% Format from Horn-Difference paper %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

148: 

149: \title{

150: \vspace*{-2\baselineskip}

151: \bf New Results on Monotone Dualization and \\ Generating Hypergraph

152: Transversals%

153: \thanks{A shorter version of this paper 

154: appears in: Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC-02), May 19-21, 2002, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.}

155: \\~\\[-2ex]}

156: 

157: \author{Thomas Eiter\thanks{Institut f\"{u}r

158: Informationssysteme, Technische Universit\"{a}t Wien, Favoritenstra{\ss}e

159: 9-11, A-1040 Vienna,

160: Austria. Email: eiter@kr.tuwien.ac.at

161: %Phone: +43-1-58801-18460, Fax: +43-1-58801-18493.

162: }

163: \qquad Georg Gottlob\thanks{Institut f\"{u}r

164: Informationssysteme, Technische Universit\"{a}t Wien, Favoritenstra{\ss}e

165: 9-11, A-1040 Vienna,

166: Austria. Email: gottlob@dbai.tuwien.ac.at

167: %,Phone: +43-1-58801-18420, Fax: +43-1-58801-18492

168: }

169: \qquad

170: Kazuhisa Makino\thanks{Division of Systems Science,

171: Graduate School of Engineering Science,

172: Osaka University,

173: Toyonaka, Osaka, 560-8531, Japan. Email: makino@sys.es.osaka-u.ac.jp}

174: %,Phone: +81-6-6850-6388,

175: %Fax: +81-6-6850-6341%

176: }

177: 

178: \date{}

179: 

180: \newlength{\help}

181: 

182: \begin{document}

183: 

184: \maketitle

185: 

186: 

187: %\nbls

188: %\renewcommand{\abstractname}{Summary}

189: 

190: \begin{abstract}

191: We consider the problem of dualizing a monotone CNF (equivalently,

192: computing all minimal transversals of a hypergraph), whose associated

193: decision problem is a prominent open problem in \NP-completeness. We

194: present a number of new polynomial time resp.\ output-polynomial time

195: results for significant cases, which largely advance the tractability

196: frontier and improve on previous results. Furthermore, we show that

197: duality of two monotone CNFs can be disproved with limited

198: nondeterminism. More precisely, this is feasible in polynomial time

199: with $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log n)$ suitably guessed bits, where $\chi(n)$ is

200: given by $\chi(n)^{\chi(n)} = n$; note that $\chi(n) = o(\log

201: n)$. This result sheds new light on the complexity of this important

202: problem.

203: \end{abstract}

204: 

205: \nbls

206: 

207: {\small

208: \begin{tabbing}

209: {\bf Keywords}: \= Dualization, hypergraphs, transversal computation,

210: output-polynomial algorithms, \\

211: \> combinatorial enumeration, treewidth, hypergraph acyclicity, limited

212: nondeterminism.

213: \end{tabbing}

214: }

215: 

216: 

217: \section{Introduction}

218: 

219: Recall that the prime CNF of a monotone Boolean function $f$ is the

220: unique formula $\gvp=\bigwedge_{c\in S} c$ in conjunctive normal form

221: where $S$ is the set of all prime implicates of $f$, i.e., minimal

222: clauses $c$ which are logical consequences of $f$.  In this paper, we

223: consider the following problem:

224: 

225: \begin{center}

226: \fbox{

227: \parbox{5.5in}{

228: \smallskip

229: 

230: \centerline{Problem {\sc Dualization}}

231: 

232: \medskip

233: \centerline{\begin{tabular}{rl}

234: Input:&The prime CNF $\gvp$ of a monotone Boolean function

235: $f=f(x_1,\ldots,x_m)$. \\

236: Output:&The prime CNF $\psi$ of its dual $f^d =

237: \ol{f}(\ol{x_1},\ldots,\ol{x_m})$.

238: \end{tabular}}

239: \smallskip

240: }}

241: \end{center}

242: 

243: It is well known

244: that {\sc Dualization} is equivalent to the {\sc Transversal

245: Computation} problem, which requests to compute the set of all minimal

246: transversals (i.e., minimal hitting sets) of a given hypergraph ${\cal

247: H}$, in other words, the {\em transversal hypergraph} $\Tr({\cal H})$ of $\cal H$.

248: Actually, these problems can be viewed as the same problem, if the

249: clauses in a monotone CNF $\gvp$ are identified with the sets of

250: variables they contain.

251: {\sc Dualization} is a search problem; the associated decision problem

252: {\sc Dual} is to decide whether two given monotone prime CNFs $\gvp$

253: and $\psi$ represent a pair $(f,g)$ of dual Boolean functions.

254: Analogously, the decision problem {\sc Trans-Hyp} associated with {\sc

255: Transversal Computation} is deciding, given hypergraphs $\cal H$ and

256: $\cal G$, whether $\cal G = \Tr({\cal H})$.

257: 

258: {\sc Dualization} and several problems which are like transversal computation known to be

259: computationally equivalent to problem {\sc Dualization} (see

260: \cite{eite-gott-95}) are of interest in various areas such as

261: database theory (e.g.\ \cite{mann-raih-86,thi-86}), machine learning

262: and data mining (e.g., \cite{BGKM2001,BGKM2002,domingo-etal-99,guno-etal-97}), game

263: theory (e.g.\

264: \cite{Gur75,Ram90,Read78}), artificial intelligence (e.g.,

265: \cite{gogi-etal-98,kavv-etal-93,khar-95,reit-87}), 

266: mathematical programming (e.g., \cite{BEGKM2001}), and distributed

267: systems (e.g., \cite{garc-barb-85,ibar-kame-93}) to mention a few.

268: 

269: While the output CNF $\psi$ can be exponential in the size of $\gvp$,

270: it is currently not known whether $\psi$ can be computed in {\em

271: output-polynomial} (or {\em polynomial total}) {\em time}, i.e., in

272: time polynomial in the combined size of $\gvp$ {\em and} $\psi$. Any

273: such algorithm for {\sc Dualization} (or for {\sc Transversal

274: Computation}) would significantly advance the state of the art of

275: several problems in the above application areas. Similarly, the

276: complexity of {\sc Dual} (equivalently, {\sc Trans-Hyp}) is open since

277: more than 20 years now (cf.\

278: \cite{bioc-ibar-95,eite-gott-95,john-91,john-etal-88,lawl-etal-80}).

279: 

280: Note that {\sc Dualization} is solvable in polynomial total time on a

281: class $\cal C$ of hypergraphs iff {\sc Dual} is in PTIME for all pairs

282: $({\cal H},{\cal G})$, where $\cal H\in {\cal C}$ \cite{bioc-ibar-95}.

283: {\sc Dual} is known to be in $\coNP$ and the best currently known

284: upper time-bound is quasi-polynomial time

285: ~\cite{fred-khac-96,gaur-99,tamaki-00}.  

286: Determining

287: the complexities of {\sc Dualization} and {\sc Dual}, and of

288: equivalent problems such as the transversal problems, is a prominent

289: open problem. This is witnessed by the fact that these problems are

290: cited in a rapidly growing body of literature and have been referenced

291: in various survey papers and complexity theory retrospectives,

292: e.g.~\cite{john-91,lova-92,papa-97}.

293: 

294: Given the importance of monotone dualization and equivalent problems

295: for many application areas, and given the long standing failure to

296: settle the complexity of these problems, emphasis was put on finding

297: tractable cases of {\sc Dual} and corresponding polynomial total-time

298: cases of {\sc Dualization}.  In fact, several relevant tractable

299: classes were found by various authors; see e.g.\

300: \cite{boro-etal-00,BGH93,BHIK97,cram-87,domingo-etal-99,eite-92,eite-gott-95,gaur-krish-00,maki-ibar-97,MI98,mish-pitt-97,PS94} and references

301: therein. Moreover, classes of formulas were identified on which {\sc

302: Dualization} is not just polynomial total-time, but where the

303: conjuncts of the dual formula can be enumerated with {\em incremental

304: polynomial delay}, i.e., with delay polynomial in the size of the

305: input plus the size of all conjuncts so far computed, or even with

306: {\em polynomial delay}, i.e., with delay polynomial in the input size

307: only. On the other hand, there are also results which show that

308: certain well-known algorithms for {\sc Dualization} are not

309: polynomial-total time. For example, \cite{eite-gott-95,mish-pitt-97}

310: pointed out that a well-known sequential algorithm, in

311: which the clauses $c_i$ of a CNF $\gvp=c_1\land\cdots\land c_m$ are

312: processed in order $i=1,\ldots,m$, is not polynomial-total time in general. Most

313: recently, \cite{taka-02} showed that this holds even if an

314: optimal ordering of the clauses is assumed (i.e., they may be

315: arbitrarily arranged for free).

316: 

317: \medskip

318: 

319: \noindent{\bf Main Goal.} The main goal of this paper is to present

320: important new polynomial total time cases of {\sc Dualization} and,

321: correspondingly, PTIME solvable subclasses of {\sc Dual} which

322: significantly improve previously considered classes. Towards this aim,

323: we first present a new algorithm {\sc Dualize} and prove its

324: correctness. {\sc Dualize} can be regarded as a generalization of a

325: related algorithm proposed by Johnson, Yannakakis, and

326: Papadimitriou~\cite{john-etal-88}. As other dualization algorithms,

327: {\sc Dualize} reduces the original problem by self-reduction to

328: smaller instances. However, the subdivision into subproblems proceeds

329: according to a particular order which is induced by an arbitrary fixed

330: ordering of the variables. This, in turn, allows us to derive some

331: bounds on intermediate computation steps which imply that {\sc

332: Dualize}, when applied to a variety of input classes, outputs the

333: conjuncts of $\psi$ with polynomial delay or incremental polynomial

334: delay. In particular, we show positive results for the following input

335: classes:

336: 

337: %\tnbls

338: 

339: %\begin{description}

340: \begin{myitemize}

341: \item[$\bullet$] {\bf Degenerate CNFs.} We generalize the notion of

342: $k$-degenerate graphs~\cite{toft-95} to hypergraphs and define {\em

343: $k$-degenerate monotone CNFs} resp.\ {\em hypergraphs}. We prove that

344: for any constant $k$, {\sc Dualize} works with polynomial delay on

345: $k$-degenerate CNFs. Moreover, it works in output-polynomial time on

346: $O(\log n)$-degenerate CNFs.

347: 

348: %\tnbls

349: 

350: \item[$\bullet$] {\bf Read-$k$ CNFs.} A CNF is {\em read-$k$}, if each

351: variable appears at most $k$ times in it. We show that for read-$k$

352: CNFs, problem {\sc Dualization} is solvable with

353: polynomial delay, if $k$ is constant, and in total polynomial time, if

354: $k=O(\log(\|\gvp\|)$.

355: Our result for constant $k$ significantly improves upon the

356: previous best known algorithm \cite{domingo-etal-99}, which has a higher

357: complexity bound, is not polynomial delay, and outputs the clauses of $\psi$

358: in no specific order. The result for $k=O(\log \|\gvp\|)$  is a non-trivial

359: generalization of the result in \cite{domingo-etal-99}, which was

360: posed as an open problem \cite{domingo-97}.

361: 

362: %\tnbls

363: 

364: \item[$\bullet$] {\bf Acyclic CNFs.} There are several notions of

365: hypergraph resp.\ monotone CNF acyclicity~\cite{fagi-83}, where the

366: most general and well-known is $\alpha$-acyclicity. As shown

367: in~\cite{eite-gott-95}, {\sc Dualization} is polynomial total time for

368: $\beta$-acyclic CNFs; $\beta$-acyclicity is the hereditary version of

369: $\alpha$-acyclicity and far less general. A similar result for

370: $\alpha$-acyclic prime CNFs was left open.  (For non-prime

371: $\alpha$-acyclic CNFs, this is trivially as hard as the general

372: case.)  In this paper, we give a positive answer and show that for

373: $\alpha$-acyclic (prime) $\gvp$, {\sc Dualization} is solvable with

374: polynomial delay.

375: %As a side result, we can improve the result for $\beta$-acyclicity in

376: %\cite{eite-gott-95}.

377: 

378: %\tnbls

379: 

380: \item[$\bullet$] {\bf Formulas of Bounded Treewidth.} The {\em

381: treewidth}~\cite{robe-seym-86}

382: of a graph expresses its degree of cyclicity. Treewidth is an

383: extremely general notion, and bounded treewidth generalizes almost all

384: other notions of near-acyclicity. Following~\cite{chekuri-rajaraman-95}, we

385: define the treewidth of a hypergraph resp.\ monotone CNF $\gvp$ as the treewidth of its

386: associated (bipartite) variable-clause incidence graph.  We show

387: that {\sc Dualization} is solvable with polynomial delay

388: (exponential in $k$) if the treewidth of $\gvp$

389: is bounded by a constant $k$, and in polynomial total time

390: if the treewidth is $O(\log\log \|\gvp\|)$.

391: 

392: %\tnbls

393: 

394: \item[$\bullet$] {\bf Recursive Applications of {\sc Dualize} and $k$-CNFs.}

395: We show that

396: if {\sc Dualize} is applied recursively and the recursion depth is

397: bounded by a constant, then {\sc Dualization} is solved in polynomial

398: total time.  We apply this to provide a simpler proof of the known

399: result~\cite{BGH93,eite-gott-95} that monotone $k$-CNFs (where each conjunct

400: contains at most $k$ variables) can be dualized in output-polynomial

401: time.

402: %{\bf Theta: kriegen wir hier einen besseren bound als im SIAM paper?}

403: %\end{description}

404: \end{myitemize}

405: 

406: 

407: After deriving the above results, we turn our attention (in

408: Section~\ref{sec:nondet}) to the  fundamental computational nature of

409: problems {\sc Dual} and {\sc Trans-Hyp} in terms of complexity theory.

410: 

411: \medskip

412: 

413: \noindent{\bf Limited nondeterminism.} In a landmark

414: paper, Fredman and Khachiyan~\cite{fred-khac-96} 

415: proved that problem {\sc Dual} can be solved in quasi-polynomial

416: time. More precisely, they first gave an algorithm~A solving the

417: problem in $n^{O(\log^2 n)}$ time, and then a more complicated

418: algorithm~B whose runtime is bounded by $n^{4\chi(n)+O(1)}$ where $\chi(n)$

419: is defined by $\chi(n)^{\chi(n)}=n$. As noted in~\cite{fred-khac-96},

420: $\chi(n)\sim \log n/\log\log n = o(\log n)$; therefore, duality

421: checking is feasible in $n^{o(\log n)}$ time. This is the best upper

422: bound for problem {\sc Dual} so far, and shows that the problem is

423: most likely not \NP-complete.

424: 

425: A natural question is whether {\sc Dual} lies in some lower complexity

426: class based on other resources than just runtime.  In the present

427: paper, we advance the complexity status of this problem by showing

428: that its complement is feasible with {\em limited nondeterminism},

429: i.e, by a nondeterministic polynomial-time algorithm that makes only a

430: poly-logarithmic number of guesses. For a survey on complexity classes

431: with limited nondeterminism, and for several references

432: see~\cite{gold-etal-96}.  

433: We first show by using a simple but

434: effective technique, which succinctly describes computation paths,

435: that testing non-duality is feasible in polynomial time with $O(\log^3

436: n)$ nondeterministic steps. We then observe that this approach can be

437: improved to obtain a bound of $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log n)$ nondeterministic

438: steps. {\em This result is surprising, because most researchers

439: dealing with the complexity of {\sc Dual} and {\sc Trans-Hyp} believed

440: so far that these problems are completely unrelated to limited

441: nondeterminism.}

442: 

443: We believe that the results presented in this paper are significant,

444: and we are confident that they will be prove useful in various

445: contexts. First, we hope that the various

446: polynomial/output-polynomial cases of the problems which we identify

447: will lead to better and more general methods in various application

448: areas (as we show, e.g.\ in learning and data

449: mining~\cite{domingo-etal-99}), and that based on the algorithm {\sc

450: Dualize} or some future modifications, further relevant tractable

451: classes will be identified. Second, we hope that our discovery on

452: limited nondeterminism provides a new momentum to complexity research

453: on {\sc Dual} and {\sc Trans-Hyp}, and will push it towards settling

454: these longstanding open problems.

455: 

456: The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The next section

457: provides some preliminaries and introduces notation. In

458: Section~\ref{sec:ordered}, we present our algorithm {\sc Dualize} for

459: dualizing a given monotone prime CNF. After that, we exploit this

460: algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:polynomial-cases} to derive a number of

461: polynomial instance classes of the problems {\sc Dualization} and {\sc

462: Dual}. In Section~\ref{sec:nondet} we then show that {\sc Dual} can be

463: solved with limited nondeterminism.

464: 

465: \section{Preliminaries and Notation}

466: \label{sec:prelim}

467: 

468: A {\em Boolean function} (in short, {\em function}) is a mapping

469: $f: \{0,1\}^{n} \to \{0,1\}$,

470: where $v \in \{0, 1\}^n$ is called a {\em Boolean vector} (in short, {\em

471: vector}).

472: %If $f(v) = 1$ (resp.,  0),

473: %then $v$ is called a {\em true} (resp., {\em false}) vector of $f$.

474: %The set of all true vectors (resp., false vectors) is denoted by $T(f)$

475: %(resp., $F(f)$).

476: %A true vector $v$ of $f$ is {\em minimal} if there is no

477: %other true vector $w$ such that $w < v$ (i.e., $w \leq v$ and $w\not=v$),

478: %and let $\min T(f)$ denote the set of

479: %all minimal true vectors of $f$.

480: %A {\em maximal} false vector is

481: %symmetrically defined and $\max F(f)$ denotes the set of all maximal

482: %false vectors of $f$.

483: As usual, we write  $g \leq f$ if $f$ and $g$ satisfy $g(v)

484: \leq f(v)$ for  all $v \in \{0,1 \}^{n}$, and $g<f$ if $g\leq f$ and

485: $g\neq f$.

486: %If $h \leq f$ and there exists a vector $v$

487: %satisfying $h(v)=0$ and $f(v)=1$, we denote $h < f$.

488: A function $f$ is {\em monotone} (or {\em positive}), if $v \leq w$

489: (i.e., $v_i \leq w_i$ for all $i$) implies $f(v) \leq f(w)$ for all

490: $v,w \in \{0,1\}^n$.  Boolean variables $x_1, x_2, \ldots , x_n$ and their

491: complements $\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2, \ldots , \bar{x}_n$ are called {\em

492: literals}.  A {\em clause} (resp., {\em term}) is a disjunction

493: (resp., conjunction) of literals containing at most one of $x_i$ and

494: $\bar{x}_i$ for each variable.  A clause $c$ (resp., term $t$) is an

495: {\em implicate} (resp., {\em implicant}) of a function $f$, if $f \leq

496: c$ (resp., $t \leq f$); moreover, it is {\em prime}, if there is no

497: implicate $c' < c$ (resp., no implicant $t' > t$) of $f$, and {\em

498: monotone}, if it consists of positive literals only. We denote by

499: $PI(f)$ the set of all prime implicants of $f$. 

500: 

501: A {\em conjunctive normal form} (CNF) (resp., disjunctive normal form,

502: DNF) is a conjunction of clauses (resp., disjunction of terms); it is

503: {\em prime} (resp.\ {\em monotone}), if all its members are prime

504: (resp.\ {\em monotone}). For any CNF (resp., DNF) $\rho$, we denote by

505: $|\rho|$ the number of clauses (resp., terms) in it. Furthermore, for

506: any formula $\gvp$, we denote by $V(\gvp)$ the set of variables that

507: occur in $\gvp$, and by $\| \gvp \|$ its {\em length}, i.e.,

508: the number of literals in it.

509: % Add proviso about set notation. 

510:  We occasionally view CNFs $\gvp$ also as sets of clauses, and

511: clauses as sets of literals, and use respective notation (e.g., $c\in

512: \gvp$, $\ol{x_1}\in c$ etc). 

513: 

514: As well-known, a function $f$ is monotone iff it has a monotone

515: CNF. Furthermore, all prime implicants and prime implicates of a

516: monotone $f$ are monotone, and it has a unique prime CNF, given by the

517: conjunction of all its prime implicates.  For example, the monotone

518: $f$ such that $f(v)=1$ iff $v\in

519: \{ (1100), (1110), (1101), (0111), (1111)\}$ has the unique prime CNF

520: $\gvp= x_2(x_1 \vee x_3)(x_1 \vee x_4)$.

521: 

522: Recall that the {\em dual} of a function $f$, denoted $f^{d}$, is

523: defined by

524: $f^{d}(x) = \ol{f}(\ol{x})$,

525: where $\ol{f}$ and $\ol{x}$ is the complement of $f$ and $x$,

526: respectively.  By definition, we have $(f^d)^d=f$. From De Morgan's

527: law, we obtain a formula for $f^{d}$ from any one of $f$ by exchanging

528: $\vee$ and $\wedge$ as well as the constants $0$ and $1$. For example,

529: if $f$ is given by $\gvp=x_1x_2 \vee \ol{x}_1(\ol{x}_3 \vee x_4)$,

530: then $f^d$ is represented by $\psi=(x_1 \vee x_2)(\ol{x}_1 \vee

531: \ol{x}_3x_4)$. For a monotone function $f$, let $\psi=\AN_{c \in C}( \OR_{x_i

532: \in c}x_i)$ be the prime CNF of $f^d$.  Then by De Morgan's

533: law, $f$ has the (unique) prime DNF $\rho=\OR_{c \in C}(\AN_{x_i \in

534: c}x_i)$; in the previous example, $\rho = x_1 x_2 \lor x_2

535: x_3x_4$. Thus, we will regard {\sc Dualization} also as the problem of

536: computing the prime DNF of $f$ from the prime CNF of $f$.

537: 

538: \section{Ordered Transversal Generation}

539: \label{sec:ordered}

540: 

541: In what follows, let $f$ be a monotone function and

542: \begin{eqnarray}

543: \gvp &=&\AN_{i=1}^mc_i \label{eq-1}

544: \end{eqnarray}

545: its prime CNF, where we assume

546: without loss of generality 

547: %w.l.o.g.

548: that all variables $x_j$ ($j=1,2, \ldots n$) appear in $\gvp$.  Let

549: $\gvp_i$ ($i=0,1, \ldots , n$) be the CNF obtained from $\gvp$ by

550: fixing variables $x_j=1$ for all $j$ with $j \geq i+1$.  By

551: definition, we have $\gvp_0= 1$ (truth) and $\gvp_n=\gvp$. For

552: example, consider $\gvp=(x_1 \vee x_2)(x_1 \vee x_3)(x_2 \vee x_3 \vee

553: x_4)(x_1 \vee x_4)$.  Then we have $\gvp_0=\gvp_1=1$, $\gvp_2=(x_1

554: \vee x_2)$, $\gvp_3=(x_1 \vee x_2)(x_1 \vee x_3)$, and $\gvp_4=\gvp$.

555: Similarly, for the prime DNF

556: \begin{eqnarray}

557: \psi&=&\textstyle \OR_{t \in \gG(f)}t  \label{eq-2}

558: \end{eqnarray}

559: of $f$, we denote

560: by $\psi_i$ the DNF obtained from $\psi$ by fixing variables $x_j=1$

561: for all $j$ with $j \geq i+1$.  Clearly, we have $\gvp_i \equiv

562: \psi_i$, i.e., $\gvp_i$ and $\psi_i$ represent the same function

563: denoted by $f_i$. 

564: 

565: \begin{proposition}

566: \label{prop1}

567: Let $\gvp$ and $\psi$ be any CNF and DNF for $f$, respectively. Then,

568: for all $i\geq 0$, 

569: \begin{itemize}

570:     \item[(a)] 

571: $\|\gvp_i\| \leq \|\gvp\|$ and  $|\gvp_i| \leq |\gvp|$, and 

572: \item[(b)]

573: $\|\psi_i\| \leq \|\psi\|$ and  $|\psi_i| \leq |\psi|$. 

574: \end{itemize}

575: \end{proposition}

576: %

577: Denote by $\gD^i$ ($i=1,2, \ldots ,n$) the CNF consisting of all the clauses

578: in $\gvp_i$ but not in $\gvp_{i-1}$.

579: For the above example, we have $\gD^1=1$, $\gD^2=(x_1 \vee x_2)$,

580: $\gD^3=(x_1

581: \vee x_3)$, and

582: $\gD^4=(x_2 \vee x_3 \vee x_4)(x_1 \vee x_4)$.

583: Note that $\gvp_{i} =\gvp_{i-1} \wedge \gD^{i}$; hence,

584: for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$ we have

585: \begin{eqnarray}

586: \psi_{i}&\equiv& \psi_{i-1} \wedge \gD^{i}

587: %\nonumber\\

588: %&\equiv&

589: \ \equiv \

590: \OR_{t \in \gG(f_{i-1})} (t \wedge \gD^{i}). \label{eq-3}

591: \end{eqnarray}

592: Let $\Delta^{i}[t]$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$ denote the CNF consisting

593: of all the clauses $c$ such that $c$ contains no literal in $t_{i-1}$ and

594: $c \vee x_{i}$ appears in $\Delta^{i}$.  For example, if

595: $t=x_2x_3x_4$ and $\gD^4=(x_2 \vee x_3 \vee x_4)(x_1

596: \vee x_4)$, then $\gD^4[t]=x_1$.

597: It follows from \raf{eq-3}  that for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$ 

598: \begin{eqnarray}

599: \psi_{i}&\equiv&  \OR_{t \in \gG(f_{i-1})} \Bigl((t\wedge\gD^{i}[t]) \ \vee\

600: (t\wedge x_{i})\Bigr). \label{eq-4}

601: \end{eqnarray}

602: \begin{lemma}

603: \label{lemma-1}

604: For every term $t\in \gG(f_{i-1})$, let $g_{i,t}$ be the function represented by

605: $\gD^{i}[t]$. Then $|\gG(g_{i,t})|\leq|\psi_{i}|\leq|\psi|$.

606: \end{lemma}

607: 

608: \proof   Let $V =\{x_1,x_2, \ldots , x_n\}$ and let $s \in \gG(g_{i,t})$.

609: Then by \raf{eq-4}, $t \wedge s$ is an implicant of $\psi_{i}$.

610: Hence, some $t^s \in \gG(f_{i})$ exists such

611: that $t^s \geq t \wedge s$.

612: Note that

613: %\begin{eqnarray}

614: $V(t) \cap V(\gD^{i}[t])=\emptyset$, %\label{eq-5}

615: %\end{eqnarray}

616: %i.e.,

617: $t$ and $\gD^{i}[t]$ have no variable in common,

618: and hence we have $V(s) \subseteq V(t^s) \,(\subseteq V(s) \cup

619: V(t))$, 

620: since otherwise there exists a clause $c$ in $\gD^{i}[t]$

621: such that $V(c) \cap V(t^s) =\emptyset$, a contradiction.  

622: Thus $V(t^s)\cap V(\gD^{i}[t]) = V(s)$.  

623: For any $s' \in \gG(g_{i,t})$ such that $s \neq s'$, 

624: let $t^s, t^{s'} \in \gG(f_{i})$ such

625: that $t^s \geq t \wedge s$ and $t^{s'} \geq t \wedge s'$, respectively. 

626: By the above discussion, we have $t^s \neq t^{s'}$.  

627: This completes the proof. \qed

628: 

629: We now describe our algorithm {\sc Dualize} for generating $\gG(f)$.

630: It is inspired by a similar graph algorithm of Johnson, Yannakakis, and

631: Papadimitriou \cite{john-etal-88}, and can be regarded as a generalization.

632: 

633: %\newpage

634: \vspace*{0.5cm}

635: 

636: \hrule

637: \begin{small}

638: \begin{quote}

639: \noindent {\bf Algorithm} {\sc Dualize}

640: 

641: \hnbls

642: \tnbls

643: 

644: \begin{tabbing}

645: {\em Output: }\=\kill

646: {\em Input:}\> The prime CNF $\gvp$ of a monotone function $f$.

647: \\

648: {\em Output:}\> The prime DNF $\psi$ of $f$, i.e. all prime

649: implicants

650: of $f$.

651: \end{tabbing}

652: 

653: \nbls

654: \tnbls

655: 

656: \begin{description}

657: \addtolength{\itemsep}{-0.1cm}

658: \item[\hspacea Step 1:] Compute the smallest prime implicant $t_{min}$ of

659: $f$ and set $Q := \{\, t_{min} \,\}$;

660: 

661: \item[\hspacea Step 2:] {\bf while} \ $Q\not=\emptyset$ \ {\bf do}

662: {\bf  begin}

663: 

664: \hspacec Remove the smallest $t$ from $Q$ and output $t$;

665: 

666: \hspacec {\bf for} each $i$ with $x_i \in V(t)$ and

667: 						$\gD^{i}[t]\not= 1$ {\bf do begin}

668: 

669: %\hspaced Compute a monotone DNF $\rho_{(t,i)}$ of the function

670: %						represented by $\gD^{i}[t]$;

671: 

672: %\hspaced  /* $\rho_{(t,i)}$ clearly contains all prime implicants of

673: %			the function represented by $\gD^{i}[t]$. */

674: 

675: \hspaced Compute the prime DNF $\rho_{(t,i)}$ of the function

676: 						represented by $\gD^{i}[t]$;

677: 

678: \hspaced {\bf for} each term $t'$ in $\rho_{(t,i)}$ {\bf do begin}

679: 

680: \hspacee {\bf if} $t_{i-1} \wedge t'$ is a prime implicant of $f_i$

681: 						{\bf then begin}

682: 

683: \hspacef Compute the smallest prime implicant $t^*$ of $f$ such that

684: 						$t^*_i=t_{i-1} \wedge t'$;

685: 

686: \hspacef $Q:=Q \cup \{t^*\}$

687: 

688: \hspacee {\bf end}$\{$if$\}$\ {\bf end}$\{$for$\}$\ {\bf end}$\{$for$\}$

689: 

690: \hspaceb {\bf end}$\{$while$\}$

691: \end{description}

692: \end{quote}

693: \end{small}

694: \hrule

695: 

696: \vspace*{0.5cm}

697: 

698: \noindent

699: Here,

700: %for two terms

701: %$s=\AN_{x_j \in V(s)}x_j$ and $t=\AN_{x_j \in V(t)}x_j$,

702: we say that term $s$ is {\em smaller} than term $t$ if

703: $\sum_{x_j \in V(s)}2^{n-j} < \sum_{x_j \in V(t)}2^{n-j}$; i.e., as

704: vector, $s$ is lexicographically smaller than $t$.

705: 

706: \begin{theorem}

707: \label{th-1}

708: Algorithm {\sc Dualize} correctly outputs all $t\in \gG(f)$ in

709: increasing order.

710: \end{theorem}

711: 

712: \proof  (Sketch)

713: First note that the term $t^*$ inserted in $Q$ when $t$ is output is

714: larger than $t$. Indeed, $t'$ ($\neq 1$) and $t_{i-1}$ are disjoint

715: and $V(t') \subseteq \{x_1,$$\ldots,x_{i-1}\}$. Hence, every term in $Q$

716: is larger than all terms already output, and the

717: output sequence is increasing.  We show by induction that, if

718: $t$ is the smallest prime implicant of $f$ that was not output yet,

719: then $t$ is already in $Q$.  This clearly proves the result.

720: 

721: Clearly, the above statement is true if $t=t_{min}$. Assume now that

722: $t \neq t_{min}$ is the smallest among the prime implicants not output

723: yet.  Let $i$ be the largest index such that $t_i$ is not a prime

724: implicant of $f_i$.  This $i$ is well-defined, since otherwise $t =

725: t_{min}$ must hold, a contradiction.  Now we have (1) $i < n$ and (2)

726: $i+1 \not\in V(t)$, where (1) holds because $t_n\,(=t)$ is a prime

727: implicant of $f_n\,(=f)$ and (2) follows from the maximality of $i$.

728: % N.B. $t_{i+1} \in \gG(f_{i+1})$.

729: Let $s \in \gG(f_i)$ such that $V(s) \subseteq V(t_i)$, and let $K=V(t_i)-V(s)$.

730: Then $K\not=\emptyset$ holds, and since $x_{i+1}\notin V(t)$, the term

731: $t'=\AN_{x_j \in K}x_j$ is a prime implicant of $\gD^{i+1}[s]$.  There

732: exists $s' \in \gG(f)$ such that $s'_i=s$ and $x_{i+1}

733: \in V(s')$, since $s \wedge x_{i+1} \in \gG(f_{i+1})$.

734: % $st' \in \gG(f_{i+1})$ and $t'\neq 1$

735: Note that $\gD^{i+1}[s]\not= 0$.  Moreover, since

736: $s'$ is smaller than $t$, by induction $s'$ has already been output.

737: Therefore, $t'=\AN_{x_j \in K}x_j$ has been considered in the inner

738: for-loop of the algorithm.  Since $s_i' \wedge t' \,(=t_i=t_{i+1})$ is

739: a prime implicant of $f_{i+1}$, the algorithm has added the smallest

740: prime implicant $t^*$ of $f$ such that $t^*_{i+1}=t_{i+1}$.  We

741: finally claim that $t^*=t$. Otherwise, let $k$ be the first index in

742: which $t^*$ and $t$ differ.  Then $k > i+1$, $x_k \in V(t)$ and $x_k

743: \not\in V(t^*)$.  However, this implies $t_k \notin \gG(f_k)$, contradicting

744: the maximality of $i$.

745: \qed

746: 

747: \begin{remark}

748: {\rm (1) The decomposition rule \raf{eq-4}

749: was already used  in \cite{lawl-etal-80}. 

750: 

751: \noindent (2) In step~1, we could generate any prime implicant $t$ of

752: $f$, and choose then a lexicographic term ordering inherited from a

753: dynamically generated variable ordering. In step~2, it is sufficient

754: that any monotone DNF $\tau_{(t,i)}$ of the function represented by

755: $\gD^{i}[t]$ is computed,

756: rather than its prime DNF $\rho_{(t,i)}$. This might make the

757: algorithm faster. 

758: }

759: \end{remark}

760: 

761: %\medskip

762: 

763: Let us consider the time complexity of algorithm {\sc Dualize}. We store $Q$

764: as a

765: binary tree, where each leaf represents a term $t$ and

766: the left (resp., right) son of a node at depth $j-1\geq 0$, where the

767: root has depth 0, encodes $x_j \in V(t)$ (resp., $x_j \not\in V(t)$).

768: In Step 1, we can compute $t_{min}$ in

769: $O(\|\gvp\|)$ time and initialize $Q$ in $O(n)$ time.

770: 

771: As for Step 2, let $T_{(t,i)}$  be the time required to compute the prime

772: DNF

773: $\rho_{(t,i)}$ from $\gD^{i}[t]$. By analyzing its substeps, we can

774:         see that each iteration of Step 2 requires

775: $\sum_{x_i \in V(t)}(T_{(t,i)}+|\rho_{(t,i)}|\cdot O(\|\gvp\|))$

776: time.

777: 

778: Indeed, we can update $Q$ (i.e., remove the smallest term and add

779: $t^*$) in $O(n)$ time.  For each $t$ and $i$, we can construct

780: $\gD^{i}[t]$ in $O(\| \gvp\|)$ time.  Moreover, we can check whether

781: $t_{i-1} \wedge t'$ is a prime implicant of $f_i$ and if so, we can

782: compute the smallest prime implicant $t^*$ of $f$ such that

783: $t^*_i=t_{i-1} \wedge t'$ in $O(\|\gvp\|)$ time; note that $t^*$ is

784: the smallest prime implicant of the function

785: obtained from $f$ by fixing $x_j=1$ if $x_j \in V(t_i \wedge t')$ and

786: $0$ if $x_j \not\in V(t_i \wedge t')$ for $j \leq i$.

787: 

788: Hence, we have the following result.

789: \begin{theorem}

790: \label{th-2}

791: The output delay  of Algorithm {\sc Dualize} is bounded by

792: \begin{equation}

793: \label{eq-6}

794: \max_{t \in \gG(f)}\Bigl(\sum_{x_i \in

795: V(t)}(T_{(t,i)}+|\rho_{(t,i)}|\cdot O(\|\gvp\|))\Bigr)

796: \end{equation}

797: time, and {\sc Dualize} needs in total time

798: \begin{equation}

799: \label{eq-7}

800: \sum_{t \in \gG(f)}\sum_{x_i \in

801: V(t)}(T_{(t,i)}+|\rho_{(t,i)}|\cdot O(\|\gvp\|)).

802: \end{equation}

803: \end{theorem}

804: 

805: 

806: If the $T_{(t,i)}$ are bounded by a polynomial in the input length,

807: %(i.e., $n$ and $\|\gvp\|$),

808:  then {\sc Dualize} becomes a polynomial delay

809: algorithm, since $|\rho_{(t,i)}| \leq T_{(t,i)}$ holds for all $t \in\gG(f)$

810: and $x_i \in V(t)$.

811: On the other hand, if they are bounded by a polynomial in the combined

812: input and output length,

813: %(i.e., $n$, $\|\gvp\|$, and $\|\psi\|$),

814:  then {\sc Dualize} is a polynomial total time algorithm,

815: where $|\rho_{(t,i)}| \leq |\psi|$ holds from Lemma~\ref{lemma-1}.

816: Using results from \cite{bioc-ibar-95}, we can construct

817: from {\sc Dualize} an incremental polynomial time algorithm for {\sc

818: Dualization}, which however might not output $\gG(f)$ in increasing

819: order.

820: Summarizing, we have the following corollary.

821: %In summary,

822: \begin{corollary}

823: \label{cor-0} Let $T=\max \{\, T_{(t,i)} \mid t \in \gG(f), x_i \in V(t) \,\}$. Then,

824: if $T$ is bounded by a

825: \begin{itemize}

826: %\addtolength{\itemsep}{-0.2cm}

827: \item[(i)]

828: polynomial in $n$ and $\|\gvp\|$, then {\sc

829: Dualize} is an $O(n

830: \|\gvp\| T)$ polynomial delay algorithm; 

831: \item[(ii)]

832: polynomial in $n$, $\|\gvp\|$, and $\|\psi\|$,

833: then {\sc Dualize} is an $O(n\cdot|\psi|\cdot(T+|\psi|\cdot\|\gvp\| ))$ polynomial

834: total-time algorithm; moreover, {\sc Dualization}

835: is solvable in incremental polynomial time.

836: \end{itemize}

837: \end{corollary}

838: 

839: In the next section, we identify sufficient conditions for the boundedness

840: of $T$ and fruitfully apply them to solve open problems and improve

841: previous results.

842: 

843: 

844: \section{Polynomial Classes}

845: \label{sec:polynomial-cases}

846: 

847: \subsection{Degenerate CNFs}

848: 

849: We first consider the case of small $\Delta^i[t]$.  Generalizing a

850: notion for graphs (i.e., monotone $2$-CNFs) \cite{toft-95}, we call a

851: monotone CNF $\gvp$ {\em $k$-degenerate}, if there exists a variable

852: ordering $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ in which $|\Delta^i| \leq k$ for all $i=1,2,

853: \ldots, n$. We call a variable ordering $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ {\em smallest

854: last} as in \cite{toft-95}, if $x_i$ is chosen in the order $i=n,n-1,

855: \ldots , 1$ such that $|\Delta^i|$ is smallest for all variables

856: that were not chosen. Clearly, a smallest last ordering gives the

857: least $k$ such that $\gvp$ is $k$-degenerate.  Therefore, we can check

858: for every integer $k\geq 1$ whether $\gvp$ is $k$-degenerate in

859: $O(\|\gvp\| )$ time.  If this holds, then we have $|\rho_{(t,i)}| \leq n^k$

860: and $T_{(t,i)}=O(kn^{k+1})$ for every $t \in \gG(f)$ and $i \in V(t)$

861: (for $T_{(t,i)}$, apply the distributive law to $\Delta^i[t]$ and

862: remove terms $t$ where some $x_j\in V(t)$ has no $c\in

863: \Delta^i[t]$ such that $V(t)\cap V(c)=\{x_j\}$).  Thus Theorem~\ref{th-2}

864: implies the following.

865: \begin{theorem}

866: \label{th-3}

867: For $k$-degenerate CNFs $\gvp$, 

868: {\sc Dualization} is solvable with $O(\|\gvp \|\cdot n^{k+1})$ polynomial

869: delay if $k\geq 1$ is constant.

870: \end{theorem}

871: 

872: Applying the result of \cite{maki-00} that log-clause CNF is dualizable

873: in incremental polynomial time,  we obtain a polynomiality result also

874: for non-constant degeneracy:

875: %then the

876: %result in \cite{maki-00} implies that $T$ is bounded by a polynomial in

877: %the input and output size.

878: \begin{theorem}

879: \label{th-4}

880: For  $O(\log \|\gvp\| )$-degenerate CNFs $\gvp$, problem {\sc

881: Dualization} is solvable in polynomial total time.

882: \end{theorem}

883: 

884: In the following, we discuss several natural subclasses of degenerate CNFs.

885: 

886: 

887: \subsubsection{Read-bounded CNFs}

888: 

889: A monotone CNF $\gvp$ is called {\em read-$k$}, if each

890: variable appears in $\gvp$ at most $k$ times.

891: Clearly, read-$k$ CNFs are $k$-degenerate, and in fact $\gvp$ is

892: read-$k$ iff it is $k$-degenerate under every variable ordering.

893: %and more precisely

894: %\begin{lemma}

895: %A monotone CNF is read-$k$ if and only if

896: %\end{lemma}

897: By applying Theorems~\ref{th-3} and \ref{th-4}, we obtain the following

898: result.

899: \begin{corollary}

900: \label{cor-3}

901: For read-$k$ CNFs  $\gvp$, problem {\sc Dualization} is solvable 

902: \begin{itemize}

903: %\addtolength{\itemsep}{-0.2cm}

904: \item[(i)]

905: with

906: $O(\|\gvp\|\cdot n^{k+1})$ polynomial delay, if $k$ is constant;

907: \item[(ii)]

908: in polynomial total time, if $k=O(\log(\|\gvp\|))$.

909: \end{itemize}

910: \end{corollary}

911: 

912: Note that Corollary~\ref{cor-3} (i) trivially implies that {\sc

913: Dualization} is solvable in $O(|\psi|\cdot n^{k+2})$ time for constant

914: $k$, since $\|\gvp\|\leq kn$.  This improves upon the

915: previous best known algorithm \cite{domingo-etal-99}, which is only

916: $O(|\psi|\cdot n^{k+3})$ time, not polynomial delay, and outputs $\gG(f)$

917: in no specific order.  Corollary \ref{cor-3} (ii) is a non-trivial

918: generalization of the result in \cite{domingo-etal-99}, which was

919: posed as an open problem \cite{domingo-97}.

920: 

921: \subsubsection{Acyclic CNFs}

922: 

923: Like in graphs, acyclicity is appealing in hypergraphs resp.\ monotone

924:                     CNFs from a theoretical as well as a practical

925:                     point of view.

926: However, there are many notions of acyclicity for hypergraphs (cf.\

927: \cite{fagi-83}), since different generalizations

928: from graphs are possible. We refer to $\ga$-, $\gb$-,$\gc$-, and {\em Berge}-acyclicity

929: as stated

930: in \cite{fagi-83}, for which the following proper inclusion hierarchy is

931: known:

932: \begin{center}

933: Berge-acyclic $\,\subseteq\,$ $\gc$-acyclic $\,\subseteq\,$ $\gb$-acyclic

934: $\,\subseteq\,$ $\ga$-acyclic.

935: \end{center}

936: The notion of $\ga$-acyclicity came up in  relational

937: database theory. A monotone CNF $\gvp$ is {\em $\ga$-acyclic} iff $\gvp=1$

938: %(i.e., \empty) 

939: or reducible by

940: the GYO-reduction \cite{grah-79,yu-ozsoyoglu-79}, i.e.,

941: repeated application of one of the two rules:

942: 

943: \medskip

944: (1)~~ If variable $x_i$ occurs in only one clause $c$, remove $x_i$ from

945: $c$.

946: 

947: (2)~~ If distinct clauses $c$ and $c'$ satisfy $V(c) \subseteq

948:     V(c')$, remove $c$ from $\gvp$.

949: 

950: \medskip

951: \noindent

952: to $0$ (i.e., the empty clause).  Note that $\ga$-acyclicity of a

953: monotone CNF $\gvp$ can be checked, and a suitable GYO-reduction

954: output, in $O(\|\gvp\| )$ time \cite{tarjan-yannakakis-84}.

955: A monotone CNF $\gvp$ is {\em $\gb$-acyclic} iff every CNF consisting

956: of clauses in $\gvp$ is $\ga$-acyclic. As shown in

957: \cite{eite-gott-95}, the prime implicants of a monotone $f$

958: represented by a $\gb$-acyclic CNF $\gvp$ can be enumerated (and thus

959: {\sc Dualization} solved) in $p(\|\gvp\|)\cdot|\psi|$ time, where $p$ is a

960: polynomial in $\|\gvp\|$. However, the time complexity of {\sc

961: Dualization} for the more general $\ga$-acyclic prime CNFs was left as

962: an open problem.  We now show that it is solvable with polynomial

963: delay, by showing that $\ga$-acyclic CNFs are $1$-degenerate.

964: 

965: Let $\gvp \neq 1$ be a prime CNF. Let $a = a_1, a_2, \ldots , a_q$ be

966: a GYO-reduction for $\gvp$, where

967: $a_\ell=x_i$ if the $\ell$-th operation removes $x_i$ from $c$, and

968: $a_\ell=c$ if it removes $c$ from $\gvp$.

969: Consider the unique variable ordering $b_1, b_2,

970: \ldots , b_n$ such $b_i$ occurs after $b_j$ in $a$, for all $i<j$.

971: For example, let $\gvp=c_1c_2c_3c_4$,

972: where

973: $c_1=(x_1 \vee x_2 \vee x_3)$, $c_2=(x_1 \vee x_3 \vee x_5)$, $c_3=(x_1

974: \vee x_5 \vee x_6)$ and $c_4=(x_3 \vee x_4 \vee x_5)$.

975: Then $\gvp$ is $\ga$-acyclic, since it has the GYO-reduction

976: $$

977: a_1=x_2, \ a_2=c_1, \ a_3=x_4, \ a_4=x_6,\  a_5=c_4,\  a_6=c_3,

978: \  a_7=x_1, \ a_8=x_3, \  a_9=x_5.

979: $$

980: {From} this sequence, we obtain the variable ordering

981: %\begin{equation}

982: %\label{eq-8}

983: $$b_1=x_5, \ b_2=x_3, \ b_3=x_1,  \ b_4=x_6, \ b_5=x_4, \ b_6=x_2.$$

984: %\end{equation}

985: As easily checked, this ordering shows that $\gvp$ is $1$-degenerate.

986: Under this ordering,

987: %In the above example, if we rename variable as \raf{eq-8},

988: %$\gvp$ becomes  $\gvp=(x_3 \vee x_6 \vee x_2)

989: %(x_3 \vee x_2 \vee x_1)(x_3 \vee x_1 \vee x_4)(x_2 \vee x_5 \vee x_1)$

990: %and $\Delta^1=\Delta^2=1$, $\Delta^3=(x_3 \vee x_2 \vee x_1)$,

991: % $\Delta^4=(x_3 \vee x_1 \vee x_4)$,  $\Delta^5=(x_2 \vee x_5 \vee x_1)$,

992: %and  $\Delta^6=(x_3 \vee x_6 \vee x_2)$.

993: we have $\Delta^1=\Delta^2=1$, $\Delta^3=(x_1 \vee x_3 \vee x_5)$,

994: $\Delta^4=(x_1 \vee x_5 \vee x_6)$,  $\Delta^5=(x_3 \vee x_4 \vee x_5)$,

995: and  $\Delta^6=(x_1 \vee x_2 \vee x_3)$. This is not accidental.

996: \begin{lemma}

997: \label{lemma-2}

998: Every $\ga$-acyclic prime CNF is $1$-degenerate.

999: \end{lemma}

1000: 

1001: Note that the converse is not true, i.e., there exists a $1$-degenerate CNF that is not $\ga$-acyclic.

1002: For example, $\gvp=(x_1 \vee x_2 \vee x_3)(x_1 \vee x_2 \vee x_4)(x_2\vee

1003: x_3 \vee x_4 \vee x_5)$ is such a CNF.

1004: Lemma~\ref{lemma-2} and Theorem~\ref{th-3} imply the following

1005: result.

1006: \begin{corollary}

1007: \label{cor-2}

1008: For $\ga$-acyclic CNFs $\gvp$, problem {\sc Dualization} is solvable with

1009: $O(\|\gvp\|\cdot n^{2})$ delay.

1010: \end{corollary}

1011: Observe that for a prime $\alpha$-acyclic $\gvp$, we have $|\gvp|\leq

1012: n$. Thus, if we slightly modify algorithm {\sc Dualize} to check

1013: $\Delta^i=1$ in advance (which can be done in linear time in a

1014: preprocessing phase) such that such $\Delta^i$ need not be considered

1015: in step 2, then the resulting algorithm has $O(n\cdot|\gvp|\cdot\|\gvp\|)$

1016: delay.  Observe that the algorithm in \cite{eite-gott-95} solves,

1017: minorly adapted for enumerative output, {\sc Dualization} for

1018: $\beta$-acyclic CNFs with $O(n\cdot|\gvp|\cdot\|\gvp\|)$ delay. Thus, the above

1019: modification of {\sc Dualize} is of the same order.

1020: 

1021: %A CNF $\gvp$ is {\em $k$-CNF} if each clause in $\gvp$ contains at most

1022: %$k$ variables.

1023: % I have a different version of this section using hypergraph

1024: %terminology.

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \subsubsection{CNFs with bounded treewidth}

1028: 

1029: A {\em tree decomposition (of type I)} of a monotone CNF $\gvp$ is a

1030: tree $T=(W,E)$ where each node $w\in W$ is labeled with a

1031: set $X(w)\subseteq V(\gvp)$ under the following conditions:

1032: \begin{enumerate}

1033: 

1034: \item $\bigcup_{w \in W}X(w) =V(\gvp)$;

1035: 

1036: 

1037: \item for every clause $c$ in $\gvp$, there exists some $w\in W$ such that

1038: $V(c) \subseteq X(w)$; and

1039: 

1040: 

1041: \item for any variable $x_i \in V$, the set of nodes $\{w \in W \mid x_i \in X(w)\}$ induces

1042: a (connected) subtree of $T$.

1043: \end{enumerate}

1044: The {\em width} of $T$ is $\max_{w \in W}|X(w)|-1$, and the {\em

1045: treewidth} of $\gvp$, denoted by $\Tw_1(\gvp)$, is the minimum width

1046: over all its tree decompositions.

1047: 

1048: Note that the usual definition of treewidth for a graph \cite{robe-seym-86} results in the

1049: case where $\gvp$ is a 2-CNF. Similarly to  acyclicity, there are several

1050: notions of treewidth for hypergraphs resp.\ monotone CNFs. For example, tree

1051: decomposition of type II of CNF $\gvp=\AN_{c \in C}c$ is

1052: defined as type-I tree decomposition of its incident $2$-CNF (i.e.,

1053: graph) $G(\gvp)$

1054: \cite{chekuri-rajaraman-95,gottlob-etal-98}.

1055: %Here $G(\gvp)=(V \cup C, \{(x_i,c)\mid x_i \in V, c \in C, x_i \mbox{

1056: %appears in } c \})$.

1057: That is, for each clause $c \in \gvp$, we introduce a new variable $y_c$ and

1058: construct $G(\gvp)=\AN_{x_i \in c \in \gvp} (x_i \vee y_c)$

1059: (here, $x_i \in c$ denotes that $x_i$ appears in $c$).

1060: Let $\Tw_2(\gvp)$ denote the type-II treewidth of $\gvp$.

1061: 

1062: \begin{proposition}

1063: \label{prop-2}

1064: For every monotone CNF $\gvp$, it holds that $\Tw_2(\gvp)\leq

1065: \Tw_1(\gvp)+2^{\Tw_1(\gvp)+1}$.

1066: \end{proposition}

1067: 

1068: \proof

1069: Let $T=(W,E)$, $X:W \to 2^V$ be any tree decomposition of $\gvp$

1070: having width $\Tw_1(\gvp)$.

1071: Introduce for all $c \in \gvp$ new variables $y_c$, and

1072: add $y_c$ to every $X(w)$ such that $V(c) \subseteq X(w)$.  Clearly, the

1073: result is a type-I tree

1074: decomposition of $G(\gvp)$,

1075: and thus a type-II tree decomposition of $\gvp$.

1076: Since at most $2^{|X(w)|}$ many $y_c$ are added to $X(w)$ and

1077: $|X(w)|-1 \leq \Tw_1(\gvp)$ for every $w \in W$, the result follows.

1078: \qed

1079: 

1080: This means that if $\Tw_1(\gvp)$ is bounded by some constant, then so

1081: is $\Tw_2(\gvp)$. Moreover, $\Tw_1(\gvp)=k$ implies that $\gvp$ is a

1082: $k$-CNF; we discuss $k$-CNFs in Section~\ref{sec:recursive} and only

1083: consider $\Tw_2(\gvp)$ here. The following proposition states some

1084: relationships between type-II

1085: treewidth and other restrictions of CNFs from above.

1086: 

1087: \begin{proposition}

1088: The following properties hold for type-II treewidth.

1089: \begin{enumerate}

1090: \item[(i)]

1091: There is a family of monotone prime CNFs $\gvp$ such that

1092: $\Tw_2(\gvp)$ is bounded by a constant, but $\gvp$ is not $k$-CNF for any

1093: constant $k$.

1094: 

1095: \item[(ii)] There is a family of monotone prime CNFs $\gvp$

1096: such that 

1097: $\Tw_2(\gvp)$ is bounded by a constant, but $\gvp$ does not have bounded

1098: read.

1099: 

1100: \item[(iii)] There is a family of $\ga$-acyclic

1101: prime CNFs $\gvp$ such that $\Tw_2(\gvp)$ is not bounded by any

1102: constant. (This is a contrast to the graph case that a graph is

1103: acyclic if and only if its treewidth is $1$.) 

1104: \end{enumerate}

1105: \end{proposition}

1106: 

1107: \proof

1108: (i): For example, $\gvp=(\OR_{x_i \in V}x_i)$ has $\Tw_2(\gvp)=1$, since

1109: it has a tree decomposition $T=(W,E)$ with $X: W \to 2^V$ defined by

1110: $W=\{1,2, \ldots ,n \}$, $E=\{(w,w+1), w=1,2, \ldots , n-1\}$, and

1111: $X(w)=\{x_w,y_c\}$, $w \in W$, where $c=(\OR_{x_i \in V}x_i)$.

1112: However, it is not an $(n-1)$-CNF (but an $n$-CNF).  On the other hand,

1113: by Lemma \ref{lemma-3}, we can see that there is a family of monotone

1114: prime CNFs $\gvp$ such that $\Tw_2(\gvp)$ is not bounded by any

1115: 	   constant,

1116: but $\gvp$ is $k$-CNF for some constant $k$.

1117: 

1118: 

1119: (ii): For example, let $\gvp$ be a CNF containing $n-1$ clauses

1120: $c_i=(x_1 \vee x_i)$, $i=2,3, \ldots ,n$.  Then $\gvp$ has

1121: $\Tw_2(\gvp)=1$, since it has a tree decomposition $T=(W,E)$ with $X:

1122: W \to 2^V$ defined by $W=\{(c_i,x_1), (c_i,x_i), i=2,3, \ldots ,n \}$,

1123: $E=\{((c_i,x_1),(c_{i+1},x_1)), i=2,3, \ldots , n-1\} \cup

1124: \{((c_i,x_1),(c_{i},x_i)), i=2,3, \ldots , n$, and $X((c_i,x_k))=

1125: \{y_{c_i},x_k\}$, $(c_i,x_k) \in W$.  However, it is not read-($n-2)$

1126: (but read-$(n-1)$).

1127: 

1128: (iii): For example, let $\gvp$

1129: be a CNF on $V=\{x_1,x_2, \ldots, x_{2n}\}$ containing $n$ clauses

1130: $c_i=(x_i \vee \OR_{j\geq n+1}x_j)$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$.  Then $\gvp$

1131: is $\ga$-acyclic.  We claim that $\Tw_2(\gvp) \geq n-1$.  Let us

1132: assume that there exists a tree $T=(W,E)$ with $X: E \to 2^V$ that

1133: shows  $\Tw_2(\gvp) \leq n-2$, where $T$ is regarded as a rooted

1134: tree.  Let $T_i=(W_i,E_i)$ be the subtree of $T$ induced by $W_i=\{w

1135: \in W \mid y_{c_i} \in X(w)\}$, and let $r_i$ be its root.  Consider

1136: the case in which $W_i$ and $W_{j}$ are disjoint for some $i$ and $j$.

1137: Suppose that $r_{j}$ is an ancestor of $r_i$.  Since $|X(r_i)| \leq

1138: \Tw_2(\gvp)+1 \leq n-1$, there exists a node $x_{n+k}\in V$ such

1139: that $1 \leq k \leq n$ and $x_{n+k} \not\in X(r_i)$.  However, since

1140: the incident graph of $\gvp$ contains two edges $(x_{n+k},y_{c_i})$

1141: and $(x_{n+k},y_{c_j})$, we have $x_{n+k} \in \bigcup_{w \in W_i

1142: -\{r_i\}}X(w)$ and $x_{n+k} \in \bigcup_{w \in W_{j}}X(w)$. This is

1143: a contradiction to the condition that $\{w \in W \mid x_{n+k} \in

1144: X(w)\}$ is connected.  Similarly, we can prove our claim when $T_i$

1145: and $T_{j}$ are disjoint, but $r_{j}$ is not an ancestor of $r_i$.

1146: 

1147: We thus consider the case in which $W_i \cap W_{j} \not= \emptyset$

1148: holds for any $i$ and $j$. Since $T_i$'s are trees, the family of

1149: $W_i$, $i=1,2, \ldots, n$, satisfies the well-known Helly property,

1150: i.e., there exists a node $w$ in $\bigcap_{i=1}^n W_i$.  $X(w)$

1151: must contain all $y_{c_i}$'s.  This implies $|X(w)| \geq n$, a

1152: contradiction.

1153: \qed

1154: 

1155: As we show now, bounded-treewidth implies bounded degeneracy.

1156: \begin{lemma}

1157: \label{lemma-3}

1158: Let $\gvp$ be any monotone CNF with $\Tw_2(\gvp) = k$.

1159: Then $\gvp$ is $2^k$-degenerate.

1160: \end{lemma}

1161: 

1162: \proof 

1163: Let $T=(W,E)$ with $X: W \to 2^V$ show  $\Tw_2(\gvp) =k$.

1164: {From this}, we reversely construct a variable ordering $a=a_1,\ldots,a_n$

1165: on $V=V(\gvp)$ such

1166: that $|\gD^i| \leq 2^k$ for all $i$.

1167: 

1168: Set $i:=n$. Choose any leaf $w^*$ of $T$, and let $p(w^*)$ be a node

1169: in $W$ adjacent to $w^*$. If $X(w^*)\setminus X(p(w^*)) \subseteq

1170: \{y_c \mid c \in \gvp\}$, then remove $w^*$ from $T$. On the other

1171: hand, if $(X(w^*)\setminus X(p(w^*))) \cap V = \{x_{j_1},\ldots,

1172: x_{j_\ell}\}$ where $\ell\geq 1$ (in this case, only $X(w^*)$ contains

1173: $x_{j_1}$, \ldots, $x_{j_\ell}$), then define $a_{i+1-h}=x_{j_h}$ for

1174: $h=1,\ldots ,\ell$ and update $i:=n-\ell$,

1175: $X(w^*):=X(w^*)\setminus\{x_{j_1},\ldots , x_{j_\ell}\}$, and

1176: $X(w):=X(w)\setminus\{y_c\mid c \in \gvp, V(c)\cap

1177: \{x_{j_1},\ldots,x_{j_\ell}\}\neq \emptyset\,\}$ for every $w \in W$.

1178: Let $a$ be completed by repeating this process. 

1179: 

1180: We claim that $a$ shows that $|\gD^i| \leq 2^k$ for all

1181: $i=1,\ldots,n$. To see this, let $w^*$ be chosen during this process, and assume that $a_i \in

1182: X(w^*)\setminus X(p(w^*))$.  Then, by induction on the (reverse) construction of $a$,

1183: we obtain that for each clause $c\in \gD^i$ we must

1184: have either (a) $y_c \in X(w^*)$ or (b) $V(c) \subseteq X(w^*)$. 

1185: The latter case may arise if in previous steps of the process some

1186: descendant $d(w^*)$ of $w^*$ was removed which contains $y_c$ such

1187: that $y_c$ does not occur in $w^*$; however, in this case $V(c)\subseteq

1188: X(w)$ must be true on every node on the path from $d(w^*)$ to

1189: $w^*$. 

1190:  

1191:  Now let $q = |X(w^*)\setminus V|$.

1192: Since $|X(w^*)\setminus\{a_i\}|\leq k$, we

1193: have 

1194: $$|\gD^i| \;\leq\; q + 2^{k-q} \;\leq\; 2^k.$$

1195: This proves the claim.

1196: %

1197: \qed

1198: 

1199: 

1200: \begin{corollary}

1201: \label{cor-4}

1202: For CNFs $\gvp$ with $\Tw_2(\gvp) \leq k$, {\sc Dualization} is

1203: solvable (i) with $O(\|\gvp\|\cdot n^{2^k+1})$ polynomial delay, if $k$ is

1204: constant; and (ii) in polynomial total time, if $k=O(\log \log \|\gvp\|)$.

1205: \end{corollary}

1206: 

1207: \subsection{Recursive application of algorithm {\sc Dualize}}

1208: \label{sec:recursive}

1209: 

1210: Algorithm {\sc Dualize} computes in step~2 the prime DNF

1211: $\rho_{(t,i)}$ of the function represented by $\gD^{i}[t]$.  Since

1212: $\gD[t]$ is the prime CNF of some monotone

1213: function, we can recursively apply

1214: {\sc Dualize} to $\gD^{i}[t]$ for computing $\rho_{(t,i)}$. Let us

1215: call this variant {\sc R-Dualize}. Then we have the following result.

1216: 

1217: \begin{theorem}

1218: \label{th-5}

1219: If its recursion depth is $d$, {\sc R-Dualize} solves {\sc Dualization} in

1220: $O(n^{d-1}\cdot|\psi|^{d-1}\cdot\|\gvp\|)$ time.

1221: \end{theorem}

1222: 

1223: \proof

1224: If $d=1$, then $\Delta^i[t_{min}]=1$ holds for $t_{min}$ and every

1225: $i\geq 1$.  This means that $\gG(f)\!=\!\{t_{min}\}$ and $\gvp$ is a

1226: $1$-CNF (i.e., each clause in $\gvp$ contains exactly one variable).

1227: Thus in this case, {\sc R-Dualize} needs $O(n)$ time.  Recall that

1228: algorithm {\sc Dualize} needs,  by \raf{eq-7}, time $\sum_{t \in

1229: \gG(f)}\sum_{x_i \in

1230: V(t)}(T_{(t,i)}\!+\!|\rho_{(t,i)}|\cdot O(\|\gvp\|))$.  If $d=2$, then

1231: $T_{(t,i)}=O(n)$ and $|\rho_{(t,i)}| \leq 1$.  Therefore, {\sc R-Dualize}

1232: needs time $O(n\cdot |\psi|\cdot\|\gvp\|)$.  For $d\geq 3$, Corollary~\ref{cor-0}.(ii) implies that {\sc R-Dualize} needs

1233: $O(n^{d-1}\cdot|\psi|^{d-1}\cdot\|\gvp\|)$ time.

1234: \qed

1235: 

1236: Recall that a CNF $\gvp$ is called {\em $k$-CNF} if each clause in

1237: $\gvp$ has at most $k$ literals. Clearly, if we apply algorithm

1238: {\sc R-Dualize} to a monotone $k$-CNF $\gvp$, the recursion depth of

1239: {\sc R-Dualize} is at most $k$. Thus we obtain the following

1240: result; it re-establishes, with different means, the main positive result

1241: of \cite{BGH93,eite-gott-95}.

1242: 

1243: \begin{corollary}

1244: \label{cor-5}

1245: {\sc R-Dualize} solves {\sc Dualization} in

1246: $O(n^{k-1}\cdot|\psi|^{k-1}\cdot\|\gvp\|)$ time, i.e., in polynomial total time

1247: for monotone $k$-CNFs $\gvp$ where $k$ is constant.

1248: 

1249: \end{corollary}

1250: 

1251: 

1252: \section{Limited Nondeterminism}

1253: \label{sec:nondet}

1254: 

1255: In the previous section, we have discussed polynomial cases of

1256: monotone dualization. In this section, we now turn to the issue of the

1257: precise complexity of this problem. For this purpose, we consider the

1258: decision problem {\sc Dual}, i.e., decide whether given monotone prime

1259: CNFs $\gvp$ and $\psi$ represent dual Boolean functions, instead of

1260: the search problem {\sc Dualization}.

1261: 

1262: It appears that problem {\sc Dual} can be solved with limited

1263: nondeterminism, i.e., with poly-log many guessed bits by a

1264: polynomial-time non-deterministic Turing machine. This result might

1265: bring new insight towards settling the complexity of the problem.

1266: 

1267: We adopt Kintala and Fischer's terminology \cite{kint-fisc-84}

1268: and write $\nondet{g(n)}$ for the class of sets accepted by a

1269: nondeterministic Turing machine in  polynomial time making at most

1270: $g(n)$ nondeterministic steps on every input of length $n$.

1271: For every integer $k\geq 1$, define $\betapol{k} =

1272: \bigcup_c\nondet{(c\log^k n)}$. The $\beta$P {\em Hierarchy} consists of the

1273: classes

1274: $$

1275: \Pol=\betapol{1}\subseteq \betapol{2}\subseteq\cdots\subseteq

1276: \bigcup_k\betapol{k}=\beta\Pol$$

1277: and lies between \Pol\ and \NP.

1278: The $\betapol{k}$ classes appear to be rather robust; they are closed under

1279: polynomial time and logspace many-one reductions and have complete

1280: problems (cf.~\cite{gold-etal-96}). The complement class of $\betapol{k}$ is

1281: denoted by $\cobetapol{k}$.

1282: 

1283: We start in Section~\ref{subsec:a} by recalling algorithm A

1284: of~\cite{fred-khac-96}, reformulated for CNFs and by analyzing A's

1285: behavior. The proof that A can be converted to an algorithm that uses

1286: $\log^3 n$ nondeterministic bit guesses, and that {\sc Dual} is thus

1287: in $\cobetapol{3}$, is rather easy and should give the reader an

1288: intuition of how our new method of analysis works. In

1289: Section~\ref{subsec:b}, we use basically the same technique for

1290: analyzing the more involved algorithm~B of ~\cite{fred-khac-96}. Using

1291: a modification of this algorithm, we show that {\sc Dual} is in

1292: $\cobetapol{2}$. We also prove the stronger result that the complement

1293: of {\sc Dual} can be solved in polynomial time with only

1294: $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log(n))$ nondeterministic steps (=bit

1295: guesses). Finally, Section~\ref{sec:beigel-fu} shows that membership

1296: in $\cobetapol{2}$ can alternatively be obtained by combining the

1297: results of \cite{fred-khac-96} with a theorem of Beigel and

1298: Fu~\cite{beig-fu-99}.

1299: 

1300: \subsection{Analysis of Algorithm A of Fredman and Khachiyan}

1301: \label{subsec:a}

1302: 

1303: 

1304: The first algorithm in \cite{fred-khac-96}  for recognizing dual

1305: monotone pairs is as follows. 

1306: 

1307: \vspace{0.3cm}

1308: \stepcounter{footnote}\footnotetext{In~\cite{fred-khac-96}, duality is tested for DNFs 

1309: while our problem {\sc Dual} speaks about CNFs; this is insignificant,

1310: since DNFs are trivially translated to CNFs for this task and vice versa (cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:prelim}).

1311: % Every algorithm that checks

1312: %duality of CNFs can be trivially converted into an algorithm that 

1313: %checks duality of DNF(I4(Bs and vice-versa. In fact, denote by $\gamma^*$ the formula obtained from a Boolean 

1314: %formula $\gamma$ by replacing all conjunctions with disjunctions 

1315: %and all disjunctions with conjunctions. Two CNFs $\gvp$ and $\psi$ are dual iff 

1316: %$\gvp^*$ and $\psi^*$ are so. The same holds for DNFs.}

1317: }

1318: \addtocounter{footnote}{-1}

1319: \hrule

1320: %\begin{small}

1321: \begin{tabbing}

1322: X\=\kill\>{\bf Algorithm} A~~(reformulated for CNFs%

1323: \footnotemark). \\[1ex]

1324: X \= {\em Output: }\=\kill

1325: \>\> {\em Input:} \' Monotone CNFs $\gvp$, $\psi$ representing monotone $f$, $g\,$\ s.t.\ $V(c)\!\cap\!V(c')\!\neq\!\emptyset$, for all

1326: $c\!\in\!\gvp$, $c'\!\in\!\psi$.\\

1327: \>\> {\em Output:} \' {\tt yes} if $f=g^d$, otherwise a vector $w$ of form $w=(w_1,\ldots,w_m)$ such that $f(w)\neq g^d(w)$.

1328: \\[1ex]

1329: {\bf Step 1:}\\[0.5ex]

1330: XX\=\kill \> Delete all redundant (i.e., non-minimal) clauses from $\gvp$ and $\psi$. 

1331: \\[0.5ex]

1332: {\bf Step 2:}\\[0.5ex]

1333: \> Check that \= (1)~ $V(\phi)=V(\psi)$,~\ (2)~ $\ \max_{c\in\gvp}|c|

1334: \leq|\psi|$,~ (3)~ $\ \max_{c'\in\psi}|c'| \leq|\gvp|$, \ and\\

1335: \>\> (4)~ $\ \Sigma_{c\in \gvp}\, 2^{-|c|}+\Sigma_{c'\in \psi}\, 2^{-|c'|}$ $\geq 1$. \\[0.5ex]

1336: \>  If any of

1337: conditions (1)-(4) fails, $f\neq g^d$  and a witness $w$ is found in polynomial time (cf.~\cite{fred-khac-96}). \\[0.5ex]

1338: {\bf Step 3:}\\[0.5ex]

1339: \> If $|\gvp|\cdot|\psi|\leq 1$, test duality in $O(1)$ time.

1340: \\[0.5ex]

1341: {\bf Step 4:} \\[0.5ex]

1342: \> If $|\gvp|\cdot|\psi|\geq 2$, find some $x_i$ occurring in  $\gvp$ or $\psi$ (w.l.o.g.\ in $\gvp$) with frequency $\geq 1/\log(|\gvp|+|\psi|)$.

1343: \\

1344: \> Let~ \=

1345: \\

1346: \>\> $\gvp_0$ = \= $\{c-\{x_i\} \mid x_i\in c,\, c \in \gvp\},$ \quad \= $\gvp_1$ = $ \{c \mid x_i\notin c,\, c\in \gvp\},$\\

1347: \>\> $\psi_0$ = \> $ \{ c'-\{x_i\} \mid x_i\in c',\, c'\in \psi\}$, \>

1348: $\psi_1$ =  $ \{c' \mid x_i\notin c',\, c'\in \psi\}$.

1349: \\[0.5ex]

1350: \> Call algorithm A on the

1351: two pairs of forms:

1352: \\[0.5ex]

1353: \centerline{(A.1)~~$(\gvp_1,\, \psi_0\land \psi_1)$ \quad and \quad (A.2)~~$(\psi_1,\,

1354: \gvp_0\land \gvp_1)$}

1355: \\[0.5ex]

1356: \> If both calls return {\tt yes}, then return {\tt yes} (as

1357:    $f=g^d$), otherwise we obtain $w$ such that \\

1358: \>  $f(w)\neq g^d(w)$ in polynomial time (cf.~\cite{fred-khac-96}).

1359: \end{tabbing}

1360: %\end{small}

1361: \hrule

1362: \vspace{0.3cm}

1363: 

1364: We observe that, as noted in \cite{fred-khac-96}, the binary length of

1365: any standard encoding of the input $\gvp,\psi$ to algorithm~A is

1366: polynomially related to $|\gvp|+|\psi|$, if step~3 is reached. Thus,

1367: for our purpose, we consider $|\gvp|+|\psi|$ to be the input size.

1368: 

1369: Let $\gvp^*$, $\psi^*$ be the original input for A. For any pair

1370: $(\gvp,\psi)$ of CNFs, define its {\em volume} by $v=|\gvp|\cdot|\psi|$,

1371: and let $\epsilon=1/\log n$, where $n = |\gvp^*|+|\psi^*|$.  As shown

1372: in~\cite{fred-khac-96}, step~4 of algorithm A divides the current

1373: (sub)problem of volume $v=|\gvp|\cdot|\psi|$ by self-reduction into

1374: subproblems (A.1) and (A.2) of respective volumes (assuming that $x_i$

1375: frequently occurs in $\gvp$):

1376: \begin{eqnarray}

1377: |\gvp_1|\cdot|\psi_0\land \psi_1|&\leq&(1-\epsilon)\cdot v\label{eq-left}\\

1378: |\gvp_0\land \gvp_1|\cdot|\psi_1| \;\leq\; |\gvp|\cdot(|\psi|-1)&\leq &v-1 \label{eq-right}

1379: \end{eqnarray}

1380: Let $T=T(\gvp,\psi)$ be the recursion tree generated by A on input

1381: $(\gvp,\psi)$. In $T$, each node $u$ is labeled with the respective

1382: monotone pair, denoted  by $I(u)$; thus, if $r$ is the root of $T$, then

1383: $I(r) = (\gvp,\psi)$.  The {\em  volume} $v(u)$ of node $u$ is defined 

1384: as the volume of its label $I(u)$. 

1385: 

1386: Any node $u$ is a leaf of $T$, if algorithm~A stops on input $I(u) =

1387: (\gvp,\psi)$ during steps 1-3; otherwise, $u$ has a left child $u_l$

1388: and a right child $u_r$ corresponding to (A.1) and (A.2), i.e.,

1389: labeled $(\gvp_1,\psi_0\land\psi_1)$ and $(\psi_1,\gvp_0\land\gvp_1)$

1390: respectively. That is, $u_l$ is the ``high frequency move'' by the

1391: splitting variable.

1392: 

1393: We observe that every node $u$ in $T$ is determined by a {\em unique path}

1394: from the root to $u$ in $T$ and thus by a unique sequence

1395: $seq(u)$ of right and left

1396: moves starting from the root of $T$ and ending at $u$. The

1397: following key lemma bounds the number of moves of each type for

1398: certain inputs.

1399: 

1400: \begin{lemma}

1401: \label{lem:e}

1402: Suppose $|\gvp^*|+|\psi^*|\leq |\gvp^*|\cdot|\psi^*|$. Then for any

1403: node $a$ in $T$, $seq(a)$ contains at most $v^*$ right moves and at most $\log^2 v^*$

1404: left moves, where $v^*=|\gvp^*|\cdot|\psi^*|$.

1405: \end{lemma}

1406: 

1407: \proof

1408: By $(\ref{eq-left})$ and $(\ref{eq-right})$, each move decreases

1409: the volume of a node label.  Thus, the length of $seq(u)$, and in

1410: particular the number of right moves, is bounded by $v^*$. To obtain the

1411: better bound for the left moves, we will use the following well-known

1412: inequality:

1413: \begin{eqnarray}

1414: (1-1/y)^y & \leq & 1/e, \qquad \mbox{for $y\geq 1$}. \label{eq-limes}

1415: \end{eqnarray}

1416: In fact, the sequence $(1-1/y_i)^{y_i}$, for any $1\leq y_1<y_2<\ldots$

1417: monotonically converges to $1/e$ from below.

1418: By (\ref{eq-left}), the volume $v(u)$ of

1419: any node $u$ such that $seq(u)$

1420: contains $\log^2 v^*$ left moves is

1421: bounded as follows:

1422: $$

1423: v(u) \leq v^*\cdot(1-\epsilon)^{\log^2 v^*} = v^*\cdot(1-1/\log n)^{\log^2 v^*}.

1424: $$ 

1425: Since $n=|\gvp^*|+|\psi^*|\leq |\gvp^*|\cdot|\psi^*|=v^*$, and because

1426: of (\ref{eq-limes}) it follows that:

1427: \begin{eqnarray*}

1428: v(u)  &\leq& v^*\cdot \big( (1-1/\log v^*)^{\log v^*}\big)^{\log v^*} \\

1429: & \leq & v^*\cdot (1/e)^{\log v^*}

1430: \; = \; v^*/(e^{\log v^*})

1431: \; < \; v^*/(2^{\log v^*}) \;=\;1.

1432: \end{eqnarray*}

1433: Thus, $u$ must be a leaf in $T$. Hence for every $u$ in $T$, $seq(u)$

1434: contains at most

1435: $\log^2 v^*$ left moves.

1436: \qed

1437: 

1438: 

1439: \begin{theorem}

1440: \label{theo:beta3}

1441: Problem {\sc Dual} is in $\cobetapol{3}$.

1442: \end{theorem}

1443: 

1444: \proof Instances such that either $c\cap c'= \emptyset$ for some $c\in

1445: \gvp^*$ and $c'\in \psi^*$, the sequence $seq(u)$ is empty, or

1446: $|\gvp^*|+|\psi^*|>|\gvp^*|\cdot|\psi^*|$ are easily recognized and solved

1447: in deterministic polynomial time.  In the remaining cases, if $f\neq

1448: g^d$, then there exists a leaf $u$ in $T$ labeled by a non-dual pair

1449: $(\gvp',\psi')$. If $seq(u)$ is known, we can compute, by simulating

1450: $A$ on the branch described by $seq(u)$, the entire path

1451: $u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_l = u$ from the root $u_0$ to $u$ with all labels

1452: $I(u_0) = (\gvp^*,\psi^*)$, $I(u_1)$, \ldots, $I(u_l)$ and check that

1453: $I(u_l)$ is non-dual in steps 2 and 3 of A in polynomial time. Since

1454: the binary length of any standard encoding of $(\gvp^*,\psi^*)$ is

1455: polynomially related to $n=|\gvp^*|+|\psi^*|$ if $seq(u)$ is nonempty,

1456: to prove the result it is sufficient to show that $seq(u)$ can be 

1457: constructed in polynomial time from $O(\log^3 v^*)$ suitably guessed

1458: bits.  To see this, let us represent every $seq(u)$ as a sequence

1459: $seq^*(u)={\tt [}\ell_0,\ell_1,\ell_2\ldots, \ell_k{\tt ]}$, where

1460: $\ell_0$ is the number of leading right moves and $\ell_i$ is the

1461: number of consecutive right moves after the $i$-th left move in

1462: $seq(u)$, for $i=1,\ldots,k$. For example, if $seq(u)={\tt

1463: [r,r,l,r,r,r,l]}$, then $seq^*(u)={\tt [}2,3,0{\tt ]}$.  By

1464: Lemma~\ref{lem:e}, $seq^*(u)$ has length at most $\log^2 v^*+1$.

1465: Thus, $seq^*(u)$ occupies in binary only $O(\log^3v)$ bits; moreover,

1466: $seq(u)$ is trivially computed from $seq^*(u)$ in polynomial time.

1467: \qed

1468: 

1469: \nop{ *** SHOULD WE KEEP THIS REMARK ? WE HAVE A SHARPER ONE ***

1470: \begin{remark}

1471: \rm It also follows that if $f\neq g^d$, then a witness $w$

1472: can be found in polynomial time within $O(\log^3 n)$ nondeterministic

1473: steps. In fact, the sequence $seq(u)$ to a ``failing leaf'' labeled

1474: $(\gvp',\psi')$ describes a choice of values for all variables in

1475: $V(\gvp\land\psi)\setminus V(\gvp'\land\psi')$. By completing

1476: it with values for $V(\gvp'\land\psi')$ that show non-duality of

1477: $(\gvp',\psi')$, we obtain in polynomial time a vector $w$ such that

1478: $f(w)\neq g^d(w)$.

1479: \end{remark}

1480: }

1481: 

1482: \subsection{Analysis of Algorithm B of Fredman and Khachiyan}

1483: \label{subsec:b}

1484: 

1485: The aim of the above proof was to exhibit a new method of algorithm

1486: analysis that allows us to show with very simple means that duality

1487: can be polynomially checked with limited nondeterminism.  By applying

1488: the same method of analysis to the slightly more involved algorithm~B

1489: of~\cite{fred-khac-96} (which runs in $n^{4\chi(n)+O(1)}$ time, and

1490: thus in $n^{o(\log n)}$ time), we can sharpen the above result by

1491: proving that deciding whether monotone CNFs $\gvp$ and $\psi$ are

1492: non-dual is feasible in polynomial time with $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log n)$

1493: nondeterministic steps; consequently, the problem {\sc Dual} is in

1494: $\cobetapol{2}$.

1495: 

1496: Like algorithm~A, also algorithm~B uses a recursive self-reduction

1497: method that decomposes its input, a pair $(\gvp,\psi)$ of monotone

1498: CNFs, into smaller inputs instances for recursive calls. Analogously,

1499: the algorithm is thus best described via its {\em recursion tree} $T$,

1500: whose root represents the input instance $(\gvp^*$, $\psi^*)$ (of size

1501: $n$), whose intermediate nodes represent smaller instances, and whose

1502: leaves represent those instances that can be solved in polynomial

1503: time. Like for algorithm~A, the nodes $u$ in $T$ are labeled with the

1504: respective instances $I(u)=(\gvp,\psi)$ of monotone pairs. Whenever

1505: there is a branching from a node $u$ to children, then $I(u)$ is a

1506: pair of dual monotone CNFs iff $I(u')$ for {\em each} child $u'$ of

1507: $u$ in $T$ is a pair of dual monotone CNFs. Therefore, the original

1508: input $(\gvp^*$, $\psi^*)$ is a dual monotone pair iff all leaves of

1509: $T$ are labeled with dual monotone pairs.

1510: 

1511: Rather than describing algorithm~B in full detail, we confine here to

1512: recall those features which are relevant for our analysis.  In

1513: particular, we will describe some essential features of its recursion

1514: tree $T$. 

1515: 

1516: %We assume that all Boolean variables are of the form $x_i$ and can therefore 

1517: %be identified via their index $i$.

1518: %Let $\gvp=\AN_{c \in C}( \OR_{x_i

1519: %\in c}x_i)$ be a monotone CNF, where $C$ is the set 

1520: %of clauses of $\gvp$.

1521: 

1522: For each variable $x_i$ occurring in $\gvp$, the {\em frequency $\efi$

1523: of $x_i$ w.r.t. $\gvp$} is defined as $\efi= \frac{|\{c\in \gvp\,:\;

1524: x_i\in c\}|}{|\gvp|}$, i.e., as the number of clauses of $\gvp$

1525: containing $x_i$ divided by the total number of clauses in

1526: $\gvp$. Moreover, for each $v\geq 1$, let $\chi(v)$

1527: be defined by $\chi(v)^{\chi(v)}=v$.

1528: %

1529: % \chi(v) is not uniquely defined for v<1; e.g., 0.5^{0.5} =

1530: % 0.25^{0.25}. 

1531: %

1532: 

1533: Let $v^*=|\gvp^*||\psi^*|$ denote the volume of the input (=root)

1534: instance $(\gvp^*,\psi^*)$. For the rest of this section, we assume

1535: that $|\gvp^*|+|\psi^*|\leq |\gvp^*|\cdot|\psi^*|$.  In fact, in any instance

1536: which violates this inequality, either $\gvp^*$ or

1537: $\psi^*$ has at most one clause; in this case, {\sc Dual}

1538: is trivially solvable in polynomial time.

1539: 

1540: Algorithm~B first constructs the root $r$ of $T$ and then recursively

1541: expands the nodes of $T$.  For each node $u$ with label 

1542: $I(u) = (\gvp,\psi)$, algorithm~B does the following.

1543: 

1544: The algorithm first performs a polynomial time computation, which we shall 

1545: refer to as {\sc LCheck}$(\gvp,\psi)$ here, as follows. {\sc LCheck}$(\gvp,\psi)$ first eliminates 

1546: all redundant (i.e., non-minimal) clauses from $\gvp$ and $\psi$ and 

1547: then tests whether some of the following conditions is violated:

1548: \begin{enumerate}

1549: \item $V(\gvp)=V(\psi)$; 

1550: \item  $\max_{c\in\gvp}|c|\leq|\psi|$ \ and \  $\max_{c\in\psi}|c|\leq|\gvp|$; 

1551: \item $\min(\,|\gvp|,\,|\psi|\,) > 2$.

1552: \end{enumerate} 

1553: If {\sc LCheck}$(\gvp,\psi)=\mathit{true}$, then $u$ is a leaf of $T$ (i.e.,

1554: not further expanded); whether $I(\gvp,\psi)$ is a dual monotone pair is then

1555: decided by some procedure {\sc Test}$(\gvp,\psi)$ in polynomial time.  In case

1556: {\sc Test}$(\gvp,\psi)$ returns $\mathit{false}$, the original input

1557: $(\gvp^*$, $\psi^*)$ is not a dual monotone pair, and algorithm B

1558: returns $\mathit{false}$. Moreover, in this case a counterexample $w$

1559: to the duality of $\gvp^*$ and $\psi^*$ is computable in polynomial

1560: time from the path leading from the root $r$ of $T$ to $u$.

1561: 

1562: If {\sc LCheck}$(\gvp,\psi)$ returns $\mathit{false}$, algorithm~B chooses in

1563: polynomial time some appropriate variable $x_i$ such that $\efi>0$ and

1564: $\egi>0$, and creates two or more children of $u$ by deterministically

1565: choosing one of three alternative decomposition rules {\bf (i)}, {\bf

1566: (ii)}, and {\bf (iii)}. Each rule

1567: decomposes $I(u)=(\gvp,\psi)$ into smaller instances, whose respective

1568: volumes are summarized as follows. Let, as for algorithm~A,

1569: $\gvp_0 = \{c-\{x_i\} \mid x_i\in c,\, c \in \gvp\},$ $\gvp_1 = \{c

1570: \mid x_i\notin c,\, c\in \gvp\},$ $\psi_0 = \{ c'-\{x_i\} \mid x_i\in

1571: c',\, c'\in \psi\}$, and $\psi_1 = \{c' \mid x_i\notin c',\, c'\in

1572: \psi\}$. Furthermore, define $\ev = 1/\chi(v)$, for any $v > 0$.

1573: \begin{description}

1574: \item{\bf Rule (i)} 

1575: If $\efi \leq \evar{v(u)}$, then $I(u)$ is decomposed into:

1576: \begin{description}

1577: \item[\bf a)] one instance $(\gvp_1,\psi_0\land \psi_1)$

1578: of volume $\leq (1-\efi)\cdot v(u)$;

1579: \item[\bf b)] $|\psi_0|$ instances  $I_1,\ldots,I_{|\psi_0|}$ of volume $\leq \efi \cdot v(u)$ each.

1580: Each such instance $I_j$ corresponds to one clause of $\psi_0$ and can

1581: thus be identified as the $j$-th clause of $\psi_0$ with an index $j\leq |\psi_0|<n$ 

1582: (recall that  $n$ denotes 

1583: the size of the original input). 

1584: \end{description}

1585: 

1586: \item{\bf Rule (ii)}

1587: If $\efi > \evar{v(u)} \geq \egi$,  then $I(u)$ is decomposed into:

1588: \begin{description}

1589: \item[\bf a)] one instance $(\psi_1,\gvp_0\land \gvp_1)$

1590: of volume $\leq (1-\egi)\cdot v(u)$;

1591: \item[\bf b)] $|\gvp_0|$ instances $I_1,\ldots,I_{|\gvp_0|}$  of volume $\leq \egi \cdot v(u)$ each.

1592: Each such instance $I_j$ corresponds to one clause of $\gvp_0$ and can

1593: be identified by an index $j\leq |\gvp_0|<v^*$.

1594: \end{description}

1595: 

1596: \item{\bf Rule (iii)}

1597: If both $\efi > \evar{v(u)}$ and $\egi> \evar{v(u)}$, then $I$ is decomposed into:

1598: \begin{description}

1599: \item[$\bf c_0)$] one instance of volume $\leq (1-\efi)\cdot v(u)$, and

1600: \item[$\bf c_1)$] one instance of volume $\leq (1-\egi)\cdot v(u)$.

1601: \end{description}

1602: \end{description}

1603: Algorithm~B returns {\em true} iff {\sc Test}$(I(u))$ returns {\em true}

1604: for each leaf $u$ of the recursion tree. This concludes the

1605: description of algorithm~B.

1606: 

1607: For each node $u$ and child $u'$ of $u$ in $T$, we label the 

1608: arc $(u,u')$ with the precise type of rule that was used 

1609: to generate $u'$ from $u$. The possible labels are thus 

1610: {\bf (i.a)},  {\bf (i.b)},  {\bf (ii.a)},  {\bf (ii.b)}, {\bf (iii.c$_0$)}, and  

1611: {\bf (iii.c$_1$)}. We call {\bf (i.a)} and {\bf (ii.a)} {\em a-labels},

1612: {\bf (i.b)} and {\bf (ii.b)} {\em b-labels},

1613: and {\bf (iii.c$_0$)} and {\bf (iii.c$_1$)} {\em c-labels}.

1614: Any arc with a $b$-label is in addition labeled with the index $j$ of

1615: the respective instance $I_j$ in the decomposition, which we refer to as the {\em $j$-label} of the arc.

1616: 

1617: \begin{definition}

1618: For any node $u$ of the tree $T$,  let $seq(u)$ 

1619: denote the sequence of all edge-labels on the path 

1620: from the root $r$ of $T$ to $u$.

1621: \end{definition}

1622: 

1623: Clearly, if $seq(u)$ is known, then the entire path from $r$ to $u$

1624: including all node-labels (in particular, the one of $u$) can be

1625: computed in polynomial time.  Indeed, the depth of the tree is at most

1626: $v^*$, and adding a child to a node of $T$ according to algorithm~B

1627: is feasible in polynomial time.

1628: 

1629: The following lemma bounds the number of various labels which may

1630: occur in $seq(u)$.

1631: 

1632: \begin{lemma}

1633: \label{lem:e2}

1634: For each node $u$ in $T$, $seq(u)$ contains at most (i) $v^*$ many

1635: $a$-labels, (ii) $\log v^*$ many $b$-labels, and (iii)  $\log^2 v^*$ many $c$-labels.

1636: \nop{******** old ********

1637: \begin{enumerate}

1638: \item[a)] The number of $a$-labels in $seq(u)$ 

1639: is bounded by $v^*$.

1640: 

1641: \item[b)] The number of $b$-labels in $seq(u)$ 

1642: is bounded by $\log v^*$.

1643: 

1644: \item[c)] The number of $c$-labels in $seq(u)$ is bounded by  $log^2 v^*$.

1645: \end{enumerate}

1646: ********}

1647: \end{lemma}

1648: 

1649: \begin{proof}

1650: \noindent (i) Let us consider rule {\bf (i.a)} first.  Given that

1651: $\efi>0$, $x_i$ effectively occurs in some clause of $\gvp$. Thus

1652: $|\gvp_1|<|\gvp|$. Moreover, by definition of $\psi_0$ and $\psi_1$,

1653: $|\psi_0\land \psi_1|\leq |\psi|$. Thus we have $|\gvp_1|\cdot|\psi_0\land

1654: \psi_1|< |\gvp|\cdot|\psi|$. It follows that whenever rule {\bf (i.a)} is

1655: applied, the volume decreases (at least by 1). The same holds for rule

1656: {\bf (ii.a)} by a symmetric argument. Since no rule ever increases the

1657: volume, there are at most $v^*$ applications of an $a$-rule.

1658: 

1659: \noindent (ii) Assume that rule {\bf (i.b)} is applied to generate a

1660: child $t'$ of node $t$. By condition~3 of {\sc LCheck},

1661: $v(t)>4$. Therefore, $\chi(v(t))>2$ and thus $\efi\leq \evar{v(t)}

1662: <1/2$.  It follows that $v(t')<v(t)/2$. The same holds if $t'$ results

1663: from $t$ via rule $\bf (ii.b)$.  Because no rule ever increases the

1664: volume, any node generated after (among others) $\log v^*$

1665: applications of a $b$-rule has volume $\leq$ 1 and is thus a leaf in $T$.

1666: 

1667: \noindent (iii) If a $c$-rule is applied to generate a child $t'$ of a node $t$,

1668: and since $\evar{v(t)} > \evar{v^*} > 1/\log v^*$, the volume of $v(t)$

1669: decreases at least by factor $(1- 1/\log v^*)$. Thus, the volume

1670: of any node $u$ which results from $t$ after  $\log v^*$  applications of a

1671: $c$-rule satisfies $v(u)\leq v(t)(1- 1/\log v^*)^{\log v^*}\leq v(t)/e$

1672: by (\ref{eq-limes}); i.e., the volume has decreased more than

1673: half. Thus, any node $u$ resulting from the root of $T$ after $\log^2 v^*$ applications of a $c$-rule satisfies $v(u)

1674: \leq v^*\cdot \Big(\frac{1}{2}\Big)^{\log v^*} = 1$; that is, $u$ is a

1675: leaf in $T$. 

1676: \qed

1677: \end{proof}

1678: 

1679: \begin{theorem}

1680: \label{theo:beta2}

1681: Deciding whether monotone CNFs $\gvp$ and $\psi$ are non-dual is

1682: feasible in polynomial time with $O(\log^2 n)$ nondeterministic steps,

1683: where $n=|\gvp|+|\psi|$.  

1684: \end{theorem}

1685: 

1686: \begin{proof}

1687: As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:beta3}, we use a compact representation 

1688: $seq^*(u)$ of $seq(u)$. However, here the definition of $seq^*$ is somewhat 

1689: more involved: 

1690: \begin{itemize}

1691:  \item $seq^*(u)$ contains all $b$-labels of $seq(u)$, which are the anchor elements of $seq^*(u)$.

1692:           Every $b$-label is immediately followed by its associated $j$-label, 

1693: i.e., the label specifying which of the (many) $b$-children 

1694: is chosen. We call a $b$-label and its associated $j$-label a {\em $bj$-block}. 

1695: 

1696: \item At the beginning of $seq^*(u)$, as well as 

1697: after each $bj$-block, there is an {\em $ac$-block}. The first

1698:  $ac$-block in $seq^*(u)$ represents the sequence of all $a$- and $c$-labels in $seq(u)$ preceding the 

1699: first $b$-label in $seq(u)$, and the $i$-th $ac$-block in $seq^*(u)$,

1700: $i> 1$,  represents the

1701: sequence of the $a$ and $c$ labels (uninterrupted by any other label)

1702: following the $(i-1)$-st $bj$-block in $seq(u)$. 

1703: 

1704: Each $ac$-block consists of an $\alpha$-block followed by a

1705:         $\gamma$-block, where

1706: \begin{itemize}

1707: \item 

1708: the $\alpha$-block contains, in binary, the {\em number} of $a$-labels in the 

1709: $ac$-block, and   

1710: \item the $\gamma$-block contains all $c$-labels (single bits) in the $ac$-block, in the order as they

1711: appear.

1712: \end{itemize}

1713: \end{itemize}

1714: 

1715: For example, if $s$ = ``$(i.a),(ii.a),c_0,(ii.a),c_1,c_0,(i.a)$'' is a maximal

1716: $ac$-subsequence in $seq(u)$, then its corresponding $ac$-block in $seq^*(u)$

1717: is ``$10,c_0,c_1,c_0$'', where 10 (= 4) is the $\alpha$-block (stating that there 

1718: are four $a$-labels) and 

1719: ``$c_0,c_1,c_0$'' is the $\gamma$-block enumerating the $c$-labels 

1720: in $s$ in their correct order.

1721: 

1722: The following facts are now the key to the result. 

1723: 

1724: \begin{description}

1725: \item[Fact~A.] Given $\phi^*$,$\psi^*$ and a string $s$, it is

1726: possible to compute in polynomial time the path $r=u_0,u_1,\ldots,$

1727: $u_l=u$ from the root $r$ of $T$ to the unique node $u$ in $T$ such

1728: that $s = seq^*(u)$ and all labels $I(u_i)$, or to tell that no such

1729: node $u$ exists (i.e., $s \neq seq^*(u)$ for every node $u$ in $T$).

1730: \end{description}

1731: 

1732: This can be done by a simple procedure, which incrementally

1733: constructs $u_0$, $u_1$, etc as follows. 

1734: 

1735: Create the root node $r=u_0$, and set $I(u_0)=(\phi^*,\psi^*)$ and

1736: $t:=0$. Generate the next node $u_{t+1}$ and label it, while

1737: processing the main blocks ($ac$-blocks and

1738: $bj$-blocks) in $s$ in order, as follows: 

1739: 

1740: \begin{description}

1741: \item[$ac$-block:] Suppose the $\alpha$-block of the current

1742: $ac$-block has value $n_\alpha$, and the $\gc$-block contains labels

1743: $\gc_1,\ldots,\gc_k$. Set up counters $p:=0$ and

1744: $q:=0$, and while $p<n_\alpha$ or $q<k$, do the following.

1745: 

1746: If {\sc LCheck}$(I(u_t))=\mathit{true}$, then flag an error and halt, as $s\neq

1747: seq^*(u)$ for every node $u$ in $T$. Otherwise,  

1748: determine the rule type $\tau\in \{{\bf (i)},

1749: {\bf  (ii)}, {\bf (iii)}\}$ used by algorithm~B to (deterministically) decompose $I(u_t)$. 

1750: \begin{itemize}

1751: \item If $\tau\in\{{\bf (i)},{\bf (ii)}\}$ and $p<n_\alpha$, then assign $I(u_{t+1})$ the $a$-child of $I(u_t)$ according

1752: to algorithm~B, and increment $p$ and $t$ by 1.

1753: \item If $\tau={\bf (iii)}$ and $q<k$, then increment $q$ by 1, assign

1754: $I(u_{t+1})$ the $\gc_q$-child of $I(u_t)$ according

1755: to algorithm~B, and increment $t$ by 1.

1756: \item In all other cases (i.e.,  either $\tau\in\{{\bf (i)},{\bf (ii)}\}$ and $p\geq n_\alpha$,

1757: or $\tau={\bf (iii)}$ and $q\geq k$), flag an error and halt, since $s\neq

1758: seq^*(u)$ for every node $u$ in $T$.

1759: \end{itemize}

1760: 

1761: \item[$bj$-block:]

1762: Determine the rule type $\tau\in \{ {\bf (i)}, {\bf(ii)}, {\bf

1763: (iii)}\}$ used by

1764: algorithm~B to (deterministically) decompose $I(u_t)$. If

1765: $\tau={\bf (iii)}$, then flag an error and halt,  since $s\neq seq^*(u)$ for

1766: every node $u$ in $T$. Otherwise,  assign $I(u_{t+1})$ the $j'$-th

1767: $\bf($$\tau.$$\bf b)$-child of $I(u_t)$ according to rule $\bf

1768: ($$\tau$$\bf.b)$ of

1769: algorithm~B, where $j'$ is the $j$-label of the current $bj$-block. 

1770: \end{description}

1771: 

1772: Clearly, this procedure outputs in polynomial time the desired labeled

1773: path from $r$ to $u$, or flags an error if $s\neq seq^*(u)$ for every

1774: node $u$ in $T$.

1775: 

1776: Let us now bound the size of $seq^*(u)$  in terms of the 

1777: original input size $v^*$. 

1778: 

1779: \begin{description}

1780: \item[Fact~B.] For any $u$ in $T$, the size of $seq^*(u)$ is $O(\log^2 v^*)$. 

1781: \end{description}

1782: 

1783: By Lemma~\ref{lem:e2} (ii), there are $<\log v^*$ $bj$-blocks. As already

1784: noted, each $bj$-block has size $O(\log v^*)$; thus, the total size of

1785: all $bj$-blocks is $O(\log^2 v^*)$. Next, there are at most $\log v^*$ many

1786: $ac$-blocks and thus $\alpha$-blocks. Each $\alpha$-block encodes a number of $< v^*$ $a$-rule applications (see

1787: Lemma~\ref{lem:e2}.(i)), and thus uses at most $\log v^*$ bits.  The

1788: total size of all $\alpha$-blocks is thus at most $\log^2

1789: v^*$. Finally, by Lemma~\ref{lem:e2} (iii), the total size of all $\gamma$-blocks is at most $\log^2 v^*$.

1790: Overall, this means that $seq^*(u)$ has size $O(\log^2 v^*)$.

1791: 

1792: To prove that algorithm~B rejects input $(\gvp^*,\psi^*)$, it is thus

1793: sufficient to guess $seq^*(u)$ for some leaf $u$ in $T$, to compute in

1794: polynomial time the corresponding path $r=u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_l=u$, and

1795: to verify that {\sc LCheck}$(I(u))=\mathit{true}$ but {\sc

1796: Test}$(I(u))=\mathit{false}$. Therefore, non-duality of $\phi^*$ and

1797: $\psi^*$ can be decided in polynomial time with $O(\log^2 v^*)$ bit

1798: guesses. Given that $v^*\leq n^2$, the number of guesses is $O(\log^2

1799: n^2)=O(\log^2 n)$.  \qed

1800: \end{proof}

1801: 

1802: The following result is an immediate consequence of this theorem.

1803: 

1804: \begin{corollary}

1805: Problem {\sc Dual} is in $\cobetapol{2}$ and solvable in

1806: deterministic $n^{O(\log n)}$ time,

1807: where $n = |\gvp| + |\psi|$. 

1808: %

1809: % Note: YES-instances must have input size bounded by a polynomial in

1810: % $n$ (for sure $|\gvp|^2|\psi|^2)$ suffices), and $\log(n^k) = k\log(n)$.

1811: %

1812: \end{corollary}

1813: 

1814: (Note that Yes-instances of {\sc Dual} must have size polynomial in

1815: $n$, since dual monotone pairs $(\gvp,\psi)$ must satisfy conditions (2)

1816: and (3) in step~2 of algorithm~A.) We remark that the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:e2} and

1817: Theorem~\ref{theo:beta2} did no stress the fact that

1818: $\evar{v}=1/\chi(v)$; the proofs go through for $\evar{v}=1/\log v$

1819: as well. Thus, the use of the $\chi$-function is not

1820: essential for deriving Theorem~\ref{theo:beta2}.

1821: 

1822: However, a tighter analysis of the size of $seq^*(u)$ stressing

1823: $\chi(v)$ yields a better bound for the number of nondeterministic

1824: steps.  In fact, we show in the next result that $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log

1825: n)$ bit guesses are sufficient. Note that $\chi(n) = o(\log n)$,

1826: thus the result is an effective improvement. Moreover, it also shows

1827: that {\sc Dual} is most likely not complete for $\cobetapol{2}$.

1828: 

1829: \begin{theorem}

1830: \label{theo:logchi}

1831: Deciding whether monotone CNFs $\gvp$ and $\psi$ are non-dual is

1832: feasible in polynomial time with $O(\chi(n)\log n)$ nondeterministic

1833: steps, where $n = |\gvp|+|\psi|$.

1834: \end{theorem}

1835: 

1836: \begin{proof}

1837: In the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:beta2}, our estimates of the

1838: components of $seq^*(u)$ were rather crude. With more effort, we

1839: establish the following.

1840: 

1841: \begin{description}

1842: \item[Fact~C.] For any $u$ in $T$, the size of $seq^*(u)$ is  $O(\chi(v^*)\cdot\log(v^*))$.

1843: \end{description}

1844: 

1845: Assume node $u'$ in $T$ is a child of $u$ generated via a

1846: $b$-rule. The $j$-label of the arc $(u,u')$ serves to identify one

1847: clause of $I(u)$. Clearly, there are no more than $v(u)$

1848: such clauses. Thus $\log v(u)$ bits suffice to represent any $j$-label.

1849: 

1850: Observe that if $u$ is a node of $T$, then any path $\pi$ from $u$ to

1851: a node $w$ in $T$ contains at most $v(u)$ nodes, since the volume

1852: always decreases by at least 1 in each decomposition step.  Thus, the

1853: number of $a$-labeled arcs in $\pi$ is bounded by $v(u)$ and not just

1854: by $v^*$ ($=v(r)$).

1855: 

1856: For each node $u$ and descendant $w$ of $u$ in $T$, let

1857: $$

1858: f(u,w) = \sum_{u'\in B(u,w)} \log v(u'),

1859: $$

1860: where $B(u,w)$ is the set of all nodes $t$ on the path from $u$ 

1861: to $w$ such that the arc from $t$ to its successor on the path is $b$-labeled.

1862: 

1863: By what we have observed, the total size of all encodings of

1864: $j$-labels in $seq^*(u)$ is at most $f(v^*,u)$ and the size of all

1865: $\alpha$-blocks in $seq^*(u)$ is at most $\log(v^*) + f(v^*,u)$, were

1866: the first term takes care of the first $\alpha$-block and the second

1867: of all other $\alpha$-blocks. Therefore, the total size of all

1868: $\alpha$-blocks and all $bj$-blocks in $seq^*(u)$ is

1869: $O(f(v^*,u)+\log(v^*))$.

1870: 

1871: We now show that for each node $u$ and descendant $w$ of $u$ in $T$, it holds that

1872: $$

1873: f(u,w)\leq \log(v(u))\cdot \chi(v(u)).

1874: $$

1875: The proof is by induction on the number $|B(u,w)|$ of $b$-labeled arcs

1876: on the path $\pi$ from $u$ to $w$.  If $|B(u,w)|=0$, then obviously

1877: $f(u,w)=0\leq v(u)$.

1878: 

1879: Assume the claim holds for $|B(u',w)|\leq i$ and consider

1880: $|B(u,w)|=i+1$.  Let $t$ be the first node on $\pi$ contained in

1881: $B(u,w)$, and let $t'$ be its child on $\pi$.  Clearly,

1882: $f(u,w)=f(t,w)$, and thus we obtain:

1883: \begin{tabbing}

1884: X\= $f(u,w)$  \= $\leq$ \= $\log(v(t)) + (\log(v(t)-\log(\chi(v(t)))\cdot\chi(v(t))$ \quad \= \kill 

1885: \> $f(u,w)$ \> = \> $\log(v(t)) + f(t',w)$ \+\+\\[0.75ex] 

1886:  $\leq$ \> $\log(v(t)) + \log(v(t'))\cdot\chi(v(t'))$ \> (\textrm{induction hypothesis}) \\[0.75ex] 

1887:  $\leq$ \> $\log(v(t)) + (\log(v(t))-\log(\chi(v(t))))\cdot\chi(v(t))$ \>

1888:        (\textrm{as $v(t') \leq \frac{v(t)}{\chi(v(t))}$,\ $\chi(v(t'))\leq \chi(v(t))\,$})\\[0.75ex] 

1889:  = \> $\log(v(t))\cdot \chi(v(t))$ \>  (\textrm{as

1890: $\log(\chi(y))\cdot\chi(y) = \log y$, for all $y$}). 

1891: \end{tabbing}

1892: Thus, $f(u,w) \leq \log(v(u))\cdot \chi(v(u))$. This

1893: concludes the induction and proves the claim.

1894: 

1895: Finally, we show that the total size of all $\gamma$ blocks in

1896: $seq^*(u)$, i.e., the number of all $c$-labels in $seq(u)$, is bounded

1897: by $\chi(v^*)\cdot\log(v^*)<\log^2 v^*$. Indeed, assume a $c$-rule is

1898: applied to generate a child $t'$ of any node $t$, and let $v=v(t)$, $v'=v(t')$. Since $\efi >

1899: \evar{v}$ and $\egi>\evar{v}$, we have

1900: $v'<(1-\evar{v})\cdot v$. Since $\chi(v^*)>\chi(v)$, we have

1901: $\evar{v} = 1/\chi(v) > 1/\chi(v^*)$ and thus

1902: $$

1903: v'<\Big(1-\frac{1}{\chi(v^*)}\Big)\cdot v.

1904: $$ 

1905: Hence, any node in $T$ 

1906: resulting after $\chi(v^*)\cdot\log(v^*)$ applications

1907: of a $c$-rule has volume at most

1908: $$

1909: v^*\cdot\Big(1-\frac{1}{\chi(v^*)}\Big)^{\chi(v^*)\cdot\log v^*}

1910:  = v^*\cdot\Big[\Big(1-\frac{1}{\chi(v^*)}\Big)^{\chi(v^*)}\Big]^{\log v^*}

1911:  \leq v^*\cdot\Big(\frac{1}{e}\Big)^{\log v^*}\;\leq\; 1

1912: $$

1913: (cf.\ also (\ref{eq-limes})). Consequently, along each branch in $T$

1914: there must be 

1915: %fewer than

1916: no more than $\chi(v^*)\cdot\log v^*$ applications of a $c$-rule.  In summary, the

1917: total sizes of all $\alpha$-blocks, all $\gamma$-blocks, and  all

1918: encodings of $j$-labels in $seq^*(u)$ are all bounded by

1919: $\chi(v^*)\cdot\log v^*$. This proves Fact~C.

1920: 

1921: As a consequence, non-duality of a monotone pair $(\gvp^*,\psi^*)$ can be recognized in

1922: polynomial time with $O(\chi(v^*)\cdot\log v^*)$ many bit guesses. As

1923: already observed on the last lines of~\cite{fred-khac-96}, we have

1924: $\chi(v^*)<2\chi(n)$. Furthermore, $v^*\leq n^2$, thus $\log v^*\leq

1925: 2\log n$. Hence, non-duality $(\gvp^*,\psi^*)$ can be recognized in polynomial time with

1926: $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log(n))$ bit guesses.  \qed

1927: \end{proof}

1928: 

1929: \begin{corollary}

1930: Problem {\sc Dual} is solvable in deterministic $n^{O(\chi(n))}$ time,

1931: where $n = |\gvp| + |\psi|$. 

1932: %

1933: % Note: YES-instances must have input size bounded by a polynomial in

1934: % $n$ (for sure $|\gvp|^2|\psi|^2)$ suffices), and $\chi(n^k) \leq

1935: % k\chi(n)$ holds for fixed $k$ and large enogh $n$; indeed $n^k = \chi(n^k)^{\chi(n^k)}$

1936: % and $n^k = (\chi(n)^{\chi(n)})^k = \chi(n)^{k\chi(n)}$; since

1937: % $\chi(n)\leq\chi(n^k)$, it follows that $\chi(n^k)\leq k\chi(n)$

1938: % must hold. 

1939: %

1940: \end{corollary}

1941: 

1942: \begin{remark}\rm 

1943: Note that the sequence $seq(u)$ describing a path from the root of $T$

1944: to a ``failure leaf'' with label $I(u)=(\gvp',\psi')$

1945: describes a choice of values for all variables in

1946: $V(\gvp\land\psi)\setminus V(\gvp'\land\psi')$. By completing it with

1947: values for $V(\gvp'\land\psi')$ that show non-duality of

1948: $(\gvp',\psi')$, which is possible in polynomial time, we obtain in

1949: polynomial time from $seq(u)$ a vector $w$ such that $f(w)\neq

1950: g^d(w)$. It also follows from the proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:logchi} that a witness $w$ for $f\neq g^d$ (if

1951: one exists) can be found in polynomial time with $O(\chi(n)\cdot\log n)$

1952: nondeterministic steps. 

1953: \end{remark}

1954: %\medskip

1955:   

1956: \subsection{Application of Beigel and Fu's results}

1957: \label{sec:beigel-fu}

1958: 

1959: %

1960: While our independently developed methods substantially differ from

1961: those in \cite{beig-fu-97,beig-fu-99}, membership of problem {\sc

1962: Dual} in $\cobetapol{2}$ may also be obtained by exploiting Beigel and

1963: Fu's Theorem~8 in~\cite{beig-fu-97} (or, equivalently, Theorem~11

1964: in~\cite{beig-fu-99}). They show how to convert certain recursive

1965: algorithms that use disjunctive self-reductions, have runtime bounded

1966: by $f(n)$, and fulfill certain additional conditions, into polynomial

1967: algorithms using $\log(f(n))$ nondeterministic steps (cf.\

1968: \cite[Section 5]{beig-fu-99}). 

1969: 

1970: %However, this yields a somewhat more complicated nondeterministic algorithm.

1971: 

1972: Let us first introduce the main relevant definitions of

1973: \cite{beig-fu-97}. Let $\|y\|$ denote the size of a problem instance

1974: $y$.

1975: 

1976: 

1977: \begin{definition}[\cite{beig-fu-97}]

1978: \label{defn:wellf}

1979: A partial order $\prec$ (on problem instances) 

1980: is polynomially well-founded, if there exists a polynomial-bounded 

1981: function $p$ such that 

1982: \begin{itemize}

1983: \item $y_m\prec\cdots\prec y_1 \Rightarrow m\leq p(\|y_1\|)$ and

1984: \item $y_m\prec\cdots\prec y_1 \Rightarrow \|y_m\|\leq  p(\|y_1\|)$.

1985: \end{itemize}

1986: \end{definition}

1987: For technical simplicity, \cite{beig-fu-97} considers only languages

1988: (of problem instances) containing the empty string, $\Lambda$.

1989: 

1990: 

1991: \begin{definition}[\cite{beig-fu-97}] 

1992: \label{defn:dsr}

1993: A disjunctive self-reduction (for short, d-self-reduction)  

1994: for a language $L$ is a pair $\tuple{h,\prec}$ of a polynomial-time 

1995: computable function $h(x)=\{x_1,\ldots,x_m\}$ and a 

1996: polynomially well-founded partial order $\prec$ on problem instances

1997: such that 

1998: \begin{itemize}

1999: \item $\Lambda$ is the only minimal element under $\prec$;

2000: \item for all $x\neq\Lambda$, $x\in L\equiv h(x)\cap L\neq\emptyset$;

2001: \item for all $x$, $x_i\in h(x)\Rightarrow x_i\prec x$.

2002: \end{itemize}

2003: \end{definition}

2004: 

2005: \newcommand{\rect}{{{\rm REC}(T(x))}} 

2006: \newcommand{\thp}[1]{{T_{h,\prec}(#1)}}

2007: 

2008: \begin{definition}[\cite{beig-fu-97}] 

2009: Let $\tuple{h,\prec}$ be a d-self-reduction and let $x$ be a problem instance.

2010: \begin{itemize}

2011: \item $\thp{x}$ is the unordered rooted tree that satisfies the

2012: following rules: (1) the root is $x$; (2) for each $y$, the set of

2013: children of $y$ is $h(y)$.

2014: \item $|\thp{x}|$ is the number of leaves in 

2015: $T_{h,\prec}(x)$.

2016: \end{itemize}

2017: \end{definition}

2018: 

2019: \begin{definition}[~\cite{beig-fu-97}] 

2020: \label{defn:rect}

2021: Let $T$ be a polynomial-time computable function. A language $L$ is in

2022: $\rect$, if there is a d-self-reduction $\tuple{h,\prec}$ for

2023: $L$ such that for all $x$

2024: \begin{enumerate}

2025: \item $|\thp{x}|\leq T(x)$, and

2026: \item $T(x)\geq \sum_{x_i\in h(x)}T(x_i)$.

2027: \end{enumerate}

2028: \end{definition}

2029: 

2030: Let $\nondet{T(x)}$ denote the set of all (languages of) problems

2031: whose Yes-instances $x$ are recognizable in  polynomial time 

2032: with $T(x)$ nondeterministic bit guesses.

2033: 

2034: \begin{theorem}[~\cite{beig-fu-97}] 

2035: \label{theo:beigelfu}

2036: $\rect\subseteq\nondet{\lceil\log T(x)\rceil}$ 

2037: \end{theorem}

2038: 

2039: We now show that Theorem~\ref{theo:beigelfu}, together with 

2040: Fredman's and Khachiyan's proof of the deterministic complexity 

2041: of algorithm~B, can be used to prove that problem {\sc Dual} is in 

2042: co-$\betapol{2}$.

2043: 

2044: Let $L$ denote the set of all non-dual monotone pairs $(\gvp,\psi)$

2045: plus $\Lambda$. Let us identify each monotone pair $(\gvp,\psi)$ which

2046: satisfies {\sc LCheck}$(\gvp,\psi)$ but does not satisfy {\sc

2047: Test}$(\gvp,\psi)$ with the ``bottom element'' $\Lambda$. Thus, if a

2048: node in the recursion tree $T$ has a child labeled with such a pair, then

2049: the label is simply replaced by $\Lambda$.

2050: 

2051: Let us define the order $\prec$ on monotone pairs plus $\Lambda$ as

2052: follows: $J\prec I$, if $I\neq J$ and either $J=\Lambda$ or $J$ labels

2053: a node of the recursion tree generated by algorithm~B on input $I$. It

2054: is easy to see that both conditions of Definition~\ref{defn:wellf}

2055: apply; therefore, $\prec$ is polynomially well-founded. In fact, we

2056: may define the polynomial $p$ by the identity function; since the

2057: sizes of the instances in the recursion tree strictly decrease on

2058: each path in $T$, the two conditions hold.

2059: 

2060: Define $h$ as the function which associates 

2061: with each monotone pair $I=(\gvp,\psi)$ 

2062: those instances that label all children of the root 

2063: by algorithm $B$ on input $I$. Clearly $h$ satisfies all three

2064: conditions of Definition~\ref{defn:dsr}, and hence $\tuple{h,\prec}$ is a 

2065: $d$-self-reduction for $L$.

2066: 

2067: Let $T$ be the function which to each instance $I$ associates

2068: $v(I)^{\log v(I)}$ (recall that $v(I)$ denotes the volume of

2069: $I$). It is now sufficient to check that conditions 1 and 2 of

2070: Definition~\ref{defn:rect} are satisfied, and to ensure that

2071: Theorem~\ref{theo:beigelfu} can be applied.

2072: 

2073: That item~1 of Definition~\ref{defn:rect} is satisfied follows

2074: immediately from Lemma~5 in~\cite{fred-khac-96}, which states that the

2075: maximum number of recursive calls of algorithm~B on any input $I$ of

2076: volume $v$ is bounded by $v^{\chi(v)}$ $( \leq v^{\log v})$.  Retain,

2077: however, that the proof of this lemma is noticeably more involved than

2078: our proof of the membership of {\sc Dual} in co-$\betapol{2}$.

2079: 

2080: To verify item~2 of Definition~\ref{defn:rect}, it is sufficient

2081: to prove that for a volume $v > 4$ of any input instance 

2082: to algorithm $B$, it holds that

2083: \begin{eqnarray}

2084: v^{\log v}  &\geq & (v-1)^{\log (v-1)} + 

2085: \frac{v}{3}\cdot\Big(\frac{v}{2}\Big)^{\log \frac{v}{2}},\quad \textrm{ and} \label{i+ii} \\ 

2086: v^{\log v}  &\geq & 2(\alpha\cdot v)^{\log (\alpha\cdot v)},\quad

2087: \textrm{ where $\alpha = 1-1/\log v$}; \label{iii}

2088: \end{eqnarray}

2089: here, (\ref{i+ii}) arises from the rules ${\bf (i)}$, ${\bf (ii)}$ and

2090: (\ref{iii}) from rule ${\bf (iii)}$. As for (\ref{i+ii}), the

2091: child of $u$ from ${\bf (i.a)}$ resp.\ ${\bf (ii.a)}$ has volume at most $v-1$, and there are at most

2092: $v/3$ many children from${\bf (i.b)}$ resp.\ ${\bf (ii.b)}$, since $\min(|\gvp|,|\psi|)>2$ (recall

2093: that $v = |\gvp|\cdot|\psi|$);

2094: furthermore, each such child has volume $\leq \ev\cdot v \leq

2095: \frac{1}{2}v$.  In case of (\ref{iii}), the volume of each child of

2096: $u$ is bounded by $(1-\ev)\cdot v \leq (1-1/\log v)\cdot v$; note also

2097: that $v^{\log v}$ monotonically increases for $v>4$.  To see

2098: (\ref{i+ii}), we have 

2099: \begin{tabbing}

2100: XX\= $(v-1)^{\log(v-1)}+\frac{v}{3}\cdot\Big(\frac{v}{2}\Big)^{\log \frac{v}{2}}$  \= $\leq$ \= $2(\frac{1}{e}\cdot \alpha^{\log v + \log \alpha})\cdot v^{\log v + \log \alpha}$ \quad \= \kill 

2101: \> $(v-1)^{\log(v-1)}+\frac{v}{3}\cdot\Big(\frac{v}{2}\Big)^{\log

2102:     \frac{v}{2}}$ \> $\leq$ \> $(v-1)^{\log v} + \frac{v}{3}\cdot\frac{v^{\log v-1}}{2^{\log v-1}}$ \+ \\[0.75ex]

2103:     \> = \>  $v^{\log v}\cdot(1-\frac{1}{v})^{\log v} + \frac{2\cdot v^{\log v}}{3\cdot v}$ \\[0.75ex]

2104:     \> $\leq$ \> $v^{\log v}\cdot(1-\frac{1}{v}+\frac{2}{3\cdot v})$ \\[0.75ex]

2105:     \> = \> $v^{\log v}\cdot(1- \frac{1}{3\cdot v})$ \\[0.75ex]

2106:     \> $<$ \>  $v^{\log v}$;\-

2107: \end{tabbing}

2108: to show (\ref{iii}), note that

2109: \begin{tabbing}

2110: XX\= $2(\alpha\cdot v)^{\log(\alpha\cdot v)}$  \= $\leq$ \= $2(\frac{1}{e}\cdot \alpha^{\log \alpha})\cdot

2111:     v^{\log v + \log \alpha}$ \quad \= \kill 

2112: \> $2(\alpha\cdot v)^{\log(\alpha\cdot v)}$ \> = \>  $2\alpha^{\log v + \log \alpha}\cdot v^{\log v + \log \alpha}$ \+ \\[0.75ex]

2113:     \> $\leq$ \>  $2(\frac{1}{e}\cdot \alpha^{\log \alpha})\cdot

2114:     v^{\log v + \log \alpha}$  \> ($\alpha^{\log v}\leq 1/e$,~ by (\ref{eq-limes}))\\[0.75ex]

2115:     \> = \> $\frac{2}{e}\cdot (\alpha\cdot v)^{\log \alpha}\cdot v^{\log

2116:     v}$ \\[0.75ex]

2117:     \> $\leq$ \> $\frac{2}{e}\cdot v^{\log v}$ \> $(\alpha\cdot

2118:     v)^{\log \alpha}\leq 1$,~ i.e.,~ $\log\alpha\cdot(\log\alpha+\log v)\leq 0$,\\

2119:     \>\>\> since ${-1}<\log \alpha \leq 0$ and $\log v > 2$ \\[0.75ex]  

2120:     \> $<$ \>  $v^{\log v}$. \-

2121: \end{tabbing}

2122: We can thus apply Theorem~\ref{theo:beigelfu} and conclude 

2123: that the complement of {\sc Dual} 

2124: is in $\nondet{\lceil\log T(x)\rceil}$, and thus also 

2125: in $\betapol{2}$.

2126: 

2127: The advantage of Beigel and Fu's method is its very abstract 

2128: formulation. The method has two disadvantages, however, that are 

2129: related to the two items of Definition~\ref{defn:rect}.

2130: 

2131: The first item requires that $T(x)$ is at least the number of

2132: leaves in the tree for $x$. In order to show this, one must basically

2133: prove a deterministic time bound for the considered algorithm (or at

2134: least a bound of the number of recursive calls for each instance,

2135: which is often tantamount to a time-bound).  The method does not

2136: suggest how to do this, but presupposes that such a bound exists (in

2137: the present case, this was done by Fredman and Khachiyan in a

2138: nontrivial proof).  The second item requires to prove that the

2139: $T$-value of any node $x$ in the recursion tree is at least the sum of

2140: the $T$-values of its children.  This may be hard to show in many cases, and does not necessarily hold for every upper bound $T$.

2141: 

2142: Our method instead  does not require an a priori time bound, but 

2143: directly constructs a nondeterministic algorithm from 

2144: the original deterministic algorithm, which lends itself to 

2145: a simple analysis that directly leads to the desired 

2146: nondeterministic time bound. The deterministic time bound 

2147: follows as an immediate corollary. It turns out (as exemplified 

2148: by the very simple proof of Theorem~\ref{theo:beta2}) that the

2149: analysis involved in our method can be simpler than 

2150: an analysis according to previous techniques.

2151: 

2152: \section{Conclusion}

2153: 

2154: We have presented several new cases of the monotone dualization

2155: problem which are solvable in output-polynomial time. These cases

2156: generalize some previously known output-polynomial

2157: cases. Furthermore, we have shown by rather simple means that

2158: non-dual monotone pairs $(\gvp,\psi)$ can be recognized, using a

2159: nondeterministic variant of Fredman and Khachiyan's algorithm~B

2160: \cite{fred-khac-96}, in polynomial time with $O(\log^2 n)$ many bit

2161: guesses, which places problem {\sc Dual} in the class

2162: $\cobetapol{2}$. In fact, a refined analysis revealed that this is

2163: feasible in polynomial time with $O(\chi(n)\cdot \log n)$ many bit

2164: guesses.

2165: 

2166: While our results document progress on {\sc Dual} and {\sc

2167: Dualization} and reveal novel properties of these problems, the

2168: question whether dualization of monotone pairs $(\gvp,\psi)$ is

2169: feasible in polynomial time remains open. It would be interesting to

2170: see whether the amount of guessed bits can be further significally

2171: decreased, e.g., to $O(\log\log v\cdot \log v)$ many bits.

2172: 

2173: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}

2174: 

2175: Georg Gottlob thanks Jos\'e Balc\'azar for inviting him to an

2176: interesting workshop in Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain, and to Leonard

2177: Pitt for giving an elucidating lecture on the dualization problem

2178: there. This work was supported in part by the Austrian Science Fund

2179: (FWF) project Z29-INF, by TU Wien through a scientific collaboration

2180: grant, and by the Scientific Grant in Aid of the Ministry of

2181: Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan.

2182: 

2183: {\small

2184: 

2185: \bibliographystyle{abbrv}

2186: 

2187: \ifmakebbl

2188: 

2189: \bibliography{library,eiterlib+}

2190: 

2191: \else

2192: 

2193: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

2194: \addtolength{\itemsep}{-0.08cm}

2195: 

2196: \bibitem{beig-fu-97}

2197: R.~Beigel and B.~Fu.

2198: \newblock {Molecular computing, bounded nondeterminism, and efficient

2199: recursion}.

2200: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ 24th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and

2201: Programming (ICALP)}, pp.\ 816-826, Springer LNCS 1256, 1997.

2202: 

2203: \bibitem{beig-fu-99}

2204: R.~Beigel and B.~Fu.

2205: \newblock {Molecular computing, bounded nondeterminism, and efficient

2206: recursion}.

2207: \newblock {\em Algorithmica}, 25: 222--238, 1999.

2208: 

2209: \bibitem{bioc-ibar-95}

2210: C.~Bioch and T.~Ibaraki.

2211: \newblock {Complexity of identification and dualization of positive Boolean

2212:   functions}. 

2213: \newblock {\em Information and Computation}, 123:50--63, 1995.

2214: 

2215: \bibitem{boro-etal-00}

2216: E.~Boros, K.~Elbassioni, V.~Gurvich, and L.~Khachiyan.

2217: \newblock {An efficient incremental algorithm for generating all maximal

2218:   independent sets in hypergraphs of bounded dimension}.

2219: \newblock {\em Parallel Processing Letters}, 10(4):253--266, 2000.

2220: 

2221: \bibitem{BEGKM2001}

2222: E.~Boros, K.~Elbassioni, V.~Gurvich, 

2223: L.~Khachiyan and K.~Makino.  

2224: \newblock On generating  all minimal integer solutions for a monotone system

2225: of linear inequalities.

2226: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and

2227: Programming (ICALP)}, pp.\ 22--103, Springer LNCS 2076, 2001.

2228: 

2229: \bibitem{BGKM2001}

2230: E. Boros, V. Gurvich, L. Khachiyan and K. Makino.   

2231: \newblock Dual-bounded generating problems:  Partial and multiple

2232: transversals of a Hypergraph. 

2233: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on  Computing}, 30:2036--2050,  2001. 

2234: 

2235: \bibitem{BGKM2002}

2236: E.~Boros, V.~Gurvich, L.~Khachiyan and K.~Makino.  

2237: \newblock  On the complexity of generating maximal frequent and minimal infrequent  sets.

2238: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ 19th International Symposium on

2239: retical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS)}, pp.\ 133--141, Springer LNCS 2285, 2002.

2240: 

2241: \bibitem{BGH93}

2242: E.~Boros, V.~Gurvich, and P.~L.~Hammer.

2243: \newblock Dual subimplicants of positive Boolean functions.

2244: \newblock {\em Optimization Methods and Software}, 10:147--156, 1998. 

2245: 

2246: \bibitem{BHIK97}

2247: E.~Boros, P.~L.~Hammer, T.~Ibaraki and K.~Kawakami,

2248: \newblock Polynomial time recognition of 2-monotonic

2249: positive Boolean functions given by an oracle,

2250: \newblock  {\em SIAM Journal on  Computing}, 26 (1997) 93-109.

2251: 

2252: \bibitem{cram-87}

2253: Y.~Crama.

2254: \newblock {Dualization of regular Boolean functions}.

2255: \newblock {\em Discrete Applied Mathematics}, 16:79--85, 1987.

2256: 

2257: \bibitem{domingo-97} C.~Domingo.

2258: Private communication.

2259: 

2260: \bibitem{domingo-etal-99}

2261: C.~Domingo, N.~Mishra and L.~Pitt.

2262: \newblock Efficient read-restricted monotone CNF/DNF dualization

2263: by learning with  membership queries.

2264: \newblock {\em Machine Learning}, 37:89--110, 1999.

2265: 

2266: \bibitem{chekuri-rajaraman-95}

2267: C.~Chekuri and A.~Rajaraman.

2268: \newblock {Conjunctive query containment revisited}.

2269: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\  6th International Conference on Database

2270: Theory (ICDT)}, Delphi, Greece, Springer LNCS 1186, pp.\ 56--70, 1997.

2271: 

2272: \bibitem{eite-92}

2273: T.~Eiter.

2274: \newblock {Exact transversal hypergraphs and application to Boolean

2275:   $\mu$-functions}.

2276: \newblock {\em Journal of Symbolic Computation}, 17:215--225, 1994.

2277: 

2278: \bibitem{eite-gott-95}

2279: T.~Eiter and G.~Gottlob.

2280: \newblock {Identifying the minimal transversals of a hypergraph and related

2281:   problems}.

2282: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on  Computing}, 24(6):1278--1304, December 1995.

2283: 

2284: \bibitem{fagi-83}

2285: R.~Fagin.

2286: \newblock {Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational

2287: 		database schemes}.

2288: \newblock {\em  Journal of the ACM}, 30:514--550, 1983.

2289: 

2290: \bibitem{fred-khac-96}

2291: M.~Fredman and L.~Khachiyan.

2292: \newblock {On the complexity of dualization of monotone disjunctive

2293: normal forms}.

2294: \newblock {\em Journal of Algorithms}, 21:618--628, 1996.

2295: 

2296: \bibitem{garc-barb-85}

2297: H.~Garcia-Molina and D.~Barbara.

2298: \newblock {How to assign votes in a distributed system}.

2299: \newblock {\em Journal of the ACM}, 32(4):841--860, 1985.

2300: 

2301: \bibitem{gaur-99}

2302: D.R.~Gaur. 

2303: \newblock {\em Satisfiability and self-duality of monotone Boolean functions}.

2304: \newblock Ph.D.\ thesis, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University,  January 1999. 

2305: 

2306: 

2307: \bibitem{gaur-krish-00}

2308: D.R.~Gaur and R.~Krishnamurti. 

2309: \newblock Self-duality of bounded monotone Boolean functions and related problems. 

2310: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ 11th International Conference on Algorithmic Learning

2311: 				  Theory  (ALT)}, pp.\ 209-223, Springer LNCS 1968, 2000.

2312: %\bibitem{gins-86}

2313: %M.~L.~Ginsberg.

2314: %\newblock {Counterfactuals}.

2315: %\newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 30:35--79, 1986.

2316: 

2317: \bibitem{gogi-etal-98}

2318: G.~Gogic, C.~Papadimitriou, and M.~Sideri.

2319: \newblock {Incremental recompilation of knowledge}.

2320: \newblock {\em Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research}, 8:23--37, 1998.

2321: 

2322: \bibitem{guno-etal-97}

2323: D.~Gunopulos, R.~Khardon, H.~Mannila, and H.~Toivonen.

2324: \newblock Data mining, hypergraph transversals, and machine learning.

2325: \newblock {\em Proc.\ 16th ACM Symp.\ on Principles of Database

2326: Systems (PODS)}, pp.\ 209--216, 1997.

2327: 

2328: \bibitem{gold-etal-96}

2329: J.~Goldsmith, M.~Levy, and M.~Mundhenk.

2330: \newblock {Limited nondeterminism}.

2331: \newblock {\em SIGACT News}, 27(2):20-29, 1996.

2332: 

2333: 

2334: \bibitem{gottlob-etal-98}

2335: G.~Gottlob, N.~Leone, and F.~Scarcello.

2336: \newblock {Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries}.

2337: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ 18th ACM Symp.\ on Principles of Database

2338: Systems

2339: (PODS)}, pp.\ 21-32, 1999. Full paper to appear in {\em Journal of Computer and System Sciences}.

2340: %{\em JCSS}. 

2341: 

2342: \bibitem{grah-79}

2343: M.~Graham.

2344: \newblock {On the universal relation}.

2345: \newblock {Technical Report, University of Toronto}, Canada, September 1979.

2346: 

2347: \bibitem{Gur75}

2348: \newblock V.~Gurvich. 

2349: \newblock Nash-solvability of games in pure strategies. 

2350: \newblock {\em USSR Comput.\ Math and Math.\ Phys.}, 15(2):357--371, 1975.

2351:                 

2352:                 

2353: \bibitem{ibar-kame-93}

2354: T.~Ibaraki and T.~Kameda.

2355: \newblock {A theory of coteries: Mutual exclusion in distributed systems}.

2356: %\newblock Technical Report CSS/LCCR TR90--09, Simon Fraser University,

2357: %Burnaby,

2358: %  B.C., Canada V5A 1S6, August 1990.

2359: \newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems}, 

2360: 4(7):779--794, 1993. 

2361: 

2362: \bibitem{kavv-etal-93} 

2363: D.~Kavvadias, C.~H.~Papadimitriou,  and  M.~Sideri,   

2364: \newblock On Horn envelopes and hypergraph transversals.  

2365: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ 4th International Symposium on Algorithms and

2366: Computation (ISAAC)}, pp.\ 399--405, Springer LNCS 762,  1993. 

2367: 

2368: \bibitem{khar-95} 

2369: R.~Khardon. 

2370: \newblock  Translating between Horn representations and their characteristic models.

2371: %Technical Report TR-03-95, Center for Research in Computing Technology,

2372: %Harvard University, February 1995.

2373: \newblock {\em Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research}, 3:349-372, 1995.

2374: 

2375: \bibitem{john-91}

2376: D.~S.~Johnson.

2377: \newblock Open and closed problems in NP-completeness. 

2378: \newblock Lecture given at the International School

2379: of Mathematics ``G.~Stampacchia'': Summer School ``NP-Completeness:

2380: The First 20 Years'', Erice (Sicily)

2381: , Italy, June 20-27, 1991.

2382: 

2383: \bibitem{john-etal-88}

2384: D.~S.~Johnson, M.~Yannakakis, and C.~H.~Papadimitriou.

2385: \newblock {On generating all maximal independent sets}.

2386: \newblock {\em Information Processing Letters}, 27:119--123, 1988.

2387: 

2388: \bibitem{kint-fisc-84}

2389: C.M.R.~Kintala and P.~Fischer.

2390: %\newblock {Refining nondeterminism in relativized complexity classes}.

2391: %\newblock {\em SIAM J.\ Comput.}, 13:329--337, 1984.

2392: \newblock {Refining nondeterminism in relativized polynomial-time

2393: 		bounded computations}.

2394: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on  Computing}, 9:46--53, 1980.

2395: 

2396: \bibitem{lawl-etal-80}

2397: E.~Lawler, J.~Lenstra, and A.~{Rinnooy Kan}.

2398: \newblock {Generating all maximal independent sets: NP-hardness and

2399:   polynomial-time algorithms}.

2400: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on  Computing}, 9:558--565, 1980.

2401: 

2402: \bibitem{lova-92}

2403: L.~Lov\'{a}sz. 

2404: \newblock Combinatorial optimization: Some problems and trends.

2405: \newblock DIMACS Technical Report 92-53, RUTCOR, Rutgers University, 1992. 

2406: 

2407: \bibitem{maki-ibar-97}

2408: K.~Makino and T.~Ibaraki.

2409: \newblock {The maximum latency and identification of positive Boolean

2410:   functions}.

2411: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on Computing}, 26:1363--1383, 1997.

2412: 

2413: \bibitem{MI98}

2414: K.~Makino and T.~Ibaraki,

2415: \newblock A fast and simple algorithm for identifying

2416: 2-monotonic positive Boolean functions. 

2417: \newblock {\em Journal of Algorithms}, 26:291--305, 1998.

2418: 

2419: \bibitem{maki-00}

2420: K.~Makino.

2421: \newblock {Efficient dualization of $O(\log n)$-term monotone disjunctive

2422:   normal forms}.

2423: \newblock Technical Report 00-07, Discrete Mathematics and Systems Science,

2424:  Osaka University, 2000; to appear in {\em Discrete Applied Mathematics}. 

2425: 

2426: \bibitem{mann-raih-86}

2427: H.~Mannila and K.-J.~R{\"a}ih{\"a}.

2428: \newblock {Design by example: An application of Armstrong relations}.

2429: \newblock {\em Journal of Computer and System Sciences}, 22(2):126--141,

2430: 1986.

2431: 

2432: \bibitem{mish-pitt-97}

2433: N.~Mishra and L.~Pitt.

2434: \newblock Generating all maximal independent sets of

2435: bounded-degree hypergraphs.

2436: \newblock In: {\em Proc.\ Tenth Annual Conference on Computational Learning

2437: Theory (COLT)}, pp.\ 211--217, 1997.

2438: 

2439: 

2440: \bibitem{papa-97}

2441: Ch.~H.~Papadimitriou.

2442: \newblock {{NP}-completeness: A retrospective},

2443: In: {\em Proc.\ 24th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and

2444: Programming (ICALP)}, pp.2--6, Springer LNCS 1256, 1997.

2445: 

2446: \bibitem{PS94}

2447: U.~N.~Peled and B.~Simeone.

2448: \newblock An $O(nm)$-time algorithm for computing the dual of a regular Boolean

2449: function.

2450: \newblock {\em Discrete Applied Mathematics} 49:309--323, 1994.

2451: 

2452: \bibitem{Ram90}

2453: \newblock K.~G.~Ramamurthy.

2454: \newblock {\em Coherent Structures and Simple Games}.

2455: \newblock Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.

2456: 

2457: \bibitem{Read78}

2458: \newblock R.~C.~Read, 

2459: \newblock Every one a winner, or how to avoid isomorphism

2460: when cataloging combinatorial configurations. 

2461: \newblock {\em Annals of  Discrete Mathematics} 2:107--120, 1978.

2462: 

2463: 

2464: \bibitem{reit-87}

2465: R.~Reiter.

2466: \newblock {A theory of diagnosis from first principles}.

2467: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 32:57--95, 1987.

2468: 

2469: \bibitem{robe-seym-86}

2470: N.~Robertson and P.~Seymour.

2471: \newblock {Graph minors {II}: Algorithmic aspects of tree-width}.

2472: \newblock {\em Journal of Algorithms}, 

2473: % {\em J.\ Algorithms}, 

2474: 7:309--322, 1986.

2475: 

2476: \bibitem{taka-02}

2477: K.~Takata.

2478: \newblock {On the sequential method for listing minimal hitting sets}.

2479: \newblock In {\em Proceedings Workshop on Discrete Mathematics and Data Mining,

2480:  2nd SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, April 11-13, Arlington,

2481:  Virginia, USA}, 2002.

2482: 

2483: \bibitem{tamaki-00}H. Tamaki. 

2484: Space-efficient enumeration of minimal transversals of a hypergraph.  

2485: IPSJ-AL 75:29-36, 2000.

2486: 

2487: \bibitem{tarjan-yannakakis-84}

2488: R.~E.~Tarjan and M.~Yannakakis.

2489: \newblock {Simple linear time algorithms to test chordality of graphs,

2490: test acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs}.

2491: \newblock {\em SIAM Journal on  Computing}, 13:566--579, 1984.

2492: 

2493: \bibitem{thi-86}

2494: V.~D.~Thi.

2495: \newblock {Minimal keys and antikeys}.

2496: \newblock {\em Acta Cybernetica}, 7(4):361--371, 1986.

2497: 

2498: \bibitem{toft-95}

2499: B.~Toft.

2500: \newblock {Colouring, Stable sets and perfect graphs}.

2501: \newblock {\em Handbook of Combinatorics}, Vol.~1 Chapter 4. Elsevier, 1995.

2502: 

2503: \bibitem{yu-ozsoyoglu-79}

2504: C.~T.~Yu and M.~Ozsoyoglu.

2505: \newblock {An algorithm for tree-query membership of a distributed query}.

2506: \newblock {\em Proceedings IEEE COMPSAC}, pp.\ 306--312, 1979.

2507: 

2508: \end{thebibliography}

2509: 

2510: \fi

2511: 

2512: }

2513: 

2514: 

2515: 

2516: \end{document}

2517: 

2518: 

2519: 

2520: 

2521: 

2522: 

2523: 

2524: 

2525: 

2526: 

2527: 

2528: 

2529: 

2530: