Advertisement

In Search of a Phase Transition in the AC-Matching Problem

  • Phokion G. Kolaitis
  • Thomas Raffill
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2239)

Abstract

AC-matching is the problem of deciding whether an equation involving a binary associative-commutative function symbol, formal variables and formal constants has a solution. This problem is known to be strong NP-complete and to play a fundamental role in equational unification and automated deduction. We initiate an investigation of the existence of a phase transition in random AC-matching and its relationship to the performance of AC-matching solvers.We identify a parameter that captures the “constrainedness” of AC-matching, carry out largescale experiments, and then apply finite-size scaling methods to draw conclusions from the experimental data gathered. Our findings suggest that there is a critical value of the parameter at which the asymptotic probability of solvability of random AC-matching changes from 1 to 0. Unlike other NP-complete problems, however, the phase transition in random AC-matching seems to emerge very slowly, as evidenced by the experimental data and also by the rather small value of the scaling exponent in the power law of the derived finite-size scaling transformation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [And84]
    G. E. Andrews. The Theory of Partitions. Cambridge U. Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. [BS94]
    F. Baader and J. H. Siekmann. Unification theory. In Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, volume 2, pages 41–125. Oxford U. Press, 1994.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [CDE+99]
    M. Clavel, F. Duran, S. Eker, J. Meseguer, and M. Stehr. Maude as a formal meta-tool. In The World Congress On Formal Methods In The Development Of Computing Systems, pages 1684–1703, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [CDS+00]
    C. Coarfa, D. D. Demopoulos, A. San Miguel Aguirre, D. Subramanian, and M. Y. Vardi. Random 3-SAT: The plot thickens. In Constraint Programming 2000, pages 143–159, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [DGZ00]
    P.E. Dunne, A. Gibbons, and M. Zito. Complexity-theoretic models of phase transitions in search problems. Theor. Comp. Sci., 249:243–263, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [Eke93]
    S. Eker. Improving the efficiency of AC-matching and unification. Technical Report, INRIA-Lorraine, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [Eke00]
    S. Eker. Personal communication, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. [GMW96]
    I.P. Gent, E. MacIntyre, and P. Prosser T. Walsh. The constrainedness of search. In Proceedings of AAAI’ 96, pages 246–252, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [GW98]
    I. Gent and T. Walsh. Analysis of heuristics for number partitioning. Computational Intelligence, 14(3):430–451, 1998.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [HK99]
    M. Hermann and P. G. Kolaitis. Computational complexity of simultaneous elementary matching problems. J. Autom. Reasoning, 23(2):107–136, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [KS92]
    H. Kautz and B. Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proceedings of ECAI, pages 359–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [KS94]
    S. Kirkpatrick and Bart Selman. Critical behavior in the satisfiability of random boolean expressions. Science, 264:1297–1301, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [McC97]
    W. McCune. Solution of the Robbins problem. J. Autom. Reasoning, 19(3):263–276, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [MK98]
    P. Moreau and H. Kirchner. A compiler for rewrite programs in associativecommutative theories. In ALP/PLILP: Principles of Declarative Programming, volume 1490 of LNCS, pages 230–249. Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [NW78]
    A. Nijenhuis and H. S. Wilf. Combinatorial Algorithms for Computers and Calculators, chapter 10. Academic Press, 2nd edition, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. [Raf00]
    T. Raffill. On the search for a phase transition in AC-matching. Master’s thesis, UC Santa Cruz, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. [SD96]
    B.M. Smith and M.E. Dyer. Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence J., 8(1–2):155–181, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [SML96]
    B. Selman, D. G. Mitchell, and H. J. Levesque. Generating hard satisfiability problems. Artificial Intelligence, 81(1–2):17–29, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phokion G. Kolaitis
    • 1
  • Thomas Raffill
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of California Santa CruzCalifornia

Personalised recommendations