Dichotomy Results for Fixed-Point Existence Problems for Boolean Dynamical Systems

A complete classification of the computational complexity of the fixed-point existence problem for boolean dynamical systems, i.e., finite discrete dynamical systems over the domain {0, 1}, is presented. For function classes F and graph classes G, an (F, G)-system is a boolean dynamical system such that all local transition functions lie in F and the underlying graph lies in G. Let F be a class of boolean functions which is closed under composition and let G be a class of graphs which is closed under taking minors. The following dichotomy theorems are shown: (1) If F contains the self-dual functions and G contains the planar graphs then the fixed-point existence problem for (F, G)-systems with local transition function given by truth-tables is NP-complete; otherwise, it is decidable in polynomial time. (2) If F contains the self-dual functions and G contains the graphs having vertex covers of size one then the fixed-point existence problem for (F, G)-systems with local transition function given by formulas or circuits is NP-complete; otherwise, it is decidable in polynomial time.Comment: 17 pages; this version corrects an error/typo in the 2008/01/24 versio

Clustering with phylogenetic tools in astrophysics

Phylogenetic approaches are finding more and more applications outside the field of biology. Astrophysics is no exception since an overwhelming amount of multivariate data has appeared in the last twenty years or so. In particular, the diversification of galaxies throughout the evolution of the Universe quite naturally invokes phylogenetic approaches. We have demonstrated that Maximum Parsimony brings useful astrophysical results, and we now proceed toward the analyses of large datasets for galaxies. In this talk I present how we solve the major difficulties for this goal: the choice of the parameters, their discretization, and the analysis of a high number of objects with an unsupervised NP-hard classification technique like cladistics. 1. Introduction How do the galaxy form, and when? How did the galaxy evolve and transform themselves to create the diversity we observe? What are the progenitors to present-day galaxies? To answer these big questions, observations throughout the Universe and the physical modelisation are obvious tools. But between these, there is a key process, without which it would be impossible to extract some digestible information from the complexity of these systems. This is classification. One century ago, galaxies were discovered by Hubble. From images obtained in the visible range of wavelengths, he synthetised his observations through the usual process: classification. With only one parameter (the shape) that is qualitative and determined with the eye, he found four categories: ellipticals, spirals, barred spirals and irregulars. This is the famous Hubble classification. He later hypothetized relationships between these classes, building the Hubble Tuning Fork. The Hubble classification has been refined, notably by de Vaucouleurs, and is still used as the only global classification of galaxies. Even though the physical relationships proposed by Hubble are not retained any more, the Hubble Tuning Fork is nearly always used to represent the classification of the galaxy diversity under its new name the Hubble sequence (e.g. Delgado-Serrano, 2012). Its success is impressive and can be understood by its simplicity, even its beauty, and by the many correlations found between the morphology of galaxies and their other properties. And one must admit that there is no alternative up to now, even though both the Hubble classification and diagram have been recognised to be unsatisfactory. Among the most obvious flaws of this classification, one must mention its monovariate, qualitative, subjective and old-fashioned nature, as well as the difficulty to characterise the morphology of distant galaxies. The first two most significant multivariate studies were by Watanabe et al. (1985) and Whitmore (1984). Since the year 2005, the number of studies attempting to go beyond the Hubble classification has increased largely. Why, despite of this, the Hubble classification and its sequence are still alive and no alternative have yet emerged (Sandage, 2005)? My feeling is that the results of the multivariate analyses are not easily integrated into a one-century old practice of modeling the observations. In addition, extragalactic objects like galaxies, stellar clusters or stars do evolve. Astronomy now provides data on very distant objects, raising the question of the relationships between those and our present day nearby galaxies. Clearly, this is a phylogenetic problem. Astrocladistics 1 aims at exploring the use of phylogenetic tools in astrophysics (Fraix-Burnet et al., 2006a,b). We have proved that Maximum Parsimony (or cladistics) can be applied in astrophysics and provides a new exploration tool of the data (Fraix-Burnet et al., 2009, 2012, Cardone \& Fraix-Burnet, 2013). As far as the classification of galaxies is concerned, a larger number of objects must now be analysed. In this paper, IComment: Proceedings of the 60th World Statistics Congress of the International Statistical Institute, ISI2015, Jul 2015, Rio de Janeiro, Brazi

The Complexity of Planning Revisited - A Parameterized Analysis

The early classifications of the computational complexity of planning under various restrictions in STRIPS (Bylander) and SAS+ (Baeckstroem and Nebel) have influenced following research in planning in many ways. We go back and reanalyse their subclasses, but this time using the more modern tool of parameterized complexity analysis. This provides new results that together with the old results give a more detailed picture of the complexity landscape. We demonstrate separation results not possible with standard complexity theory, which contributes to explaining why certain cases of planning have seemed simpler in practice than theory has predicted. In particular, we show that certain restrictions of practical interest are tractable in the parameterized sense of the term, and that a simple heuristic is sufficient to make a well-known partial-order planner exploit this fact.Comment: (author's self-archived copy

Physical portrayal of computational complexity

Computational complexity is examined using the principle of increasing entropy. To consider computation as a physical process from an initial instance to the final acceptance is motivated because many natural processes have been recognized to complete in non-polynomial time (NP). The irreversible process with three or more degrees of freedom is found intractable because, in terms of physics, flows of energy are inseparable from their driving forces. In computational terms, when solving problems in the class NP, decisions will affect subsequently available sets of decisions. The state space of a non-deterministic finite automaton is evolving due to the computation itself hence it cannot be efficiently contracted using a deterministic finite automaton that will arrive at a solution in super-polynomial time. The solution of the NP problem itself is verifiable in polynomial time (P) because the corresponding state is stationary. Likewise the class P set of states does not depend on computational history hence it can be efficiently contracted to the accepting state by a deterministic sequence of dissipative transformations. Thus it is concluded that the class P set of states is inherently smaller than the set of class NP. Since the computational time to contract a given set is proportional to dissipation, the computational complexity class P is a subset of NP.Comment: 16, pages, 7 figure