On the Equivalence among Problems of Bounded Width

In this paper, we introduce a methodology, called decomposition-based reductions, for showing the equivalence among various problems of bounded-width. First, we show that the following are equivalent for any $\alpha > 0$: * SAT can be solved in $O^*(2^{\alpha \mathrm{tw}})$ time, * 3-SAT can be solved in $O^*(2^{\alpha \mathrm{tw}})$ time, * Max 2-SAT can be solved in $O^*(2^{\alpha \mathrm{tw}})$ time, * Independent Set can be solved in $O^*(2^{\alpha \mathrm{tw}})$ time, and * Independent Set can be solved in $O^*(2^{\alpha \mathrm{cw}})$ time, where tw and cw are the tree-width and clique-width of the instance, respectively. Then, we introduce a new parameterized complexity class EPNL, which includes Set Cover and Directed Hamiltonicity, and show that SAT, 3-SAT, Max 2-SAT, and Independent Set parameterized by path-width are EPNL-complete. This implies that if one of these EPNL-complete problems can be solved in $O^*(c^k)$ time, then any problem in EPNL can be solved in $O^*(c^k)$ time.Comment: accepted to ESA 201

Systematic Analysis of Majorization in Quantum Algorithms

Motivated by the need to uncover some underlying mathematical structure of optimal quantum computation, we carry out a systematic analysis of a wide variety of quantum algorithms from the majorization theory point of view. We conclude that step-by-step majorization is found in the known instances of fast and efficient algorithms, namely in the quantum Fourier transform, in Grover's algorithm, in the hidden affine function problem, in searching by quantum adiabatic evolution and in deterministic quantum walks in continuous time solving a classically hard problem. On the other hand, the optimal quantum algorithm for parity determination, which does not provide any computational speed-up, does not show step-by-step majorization. Lack of both speed-up and step-by-step majorization is also a feature of the adiabatic quantum algorithm solving the 2-SAT ``ring of agrees'' problem. Furthermore, the quantum algorithm for the hidden affine function problem does not make use of any entanglement while it does obey majorization. All the above results give support to a step-by-step Majorization Principle necessary for optimal quantum computation.Comment: 15 pages, 14 figures, final versio

Single-Step Quantum Search Using Problem Structure

The structure of satisfiability problems is used to improve search algorithms for quantum computers and reduce their required coherence times by using only a single coherent evaluation of problem properties. The structure of random k-SAT allows determining the asymptotic average behavior of these algorithms, showing they improve on quantum algorithms, such as amplitude amplification, that ignore detailed problem structure but remain exponential for hard problem instances. Compared to good classical methods, the algorithm performs better, on average, for weakly and highly constrained problems but worse for hard cases. The analytic techniques introduced here also apply to other quantum algorithms, supplementing the limited evaluation possible with classical simulations and showing how quantum computing can use ensemble properties of NP search problems.Comment: 39 pages, 12 figures. Revision describes further improvement with multiple steps (section 7). See also http://www.parc.xerox.com/dynamics/www/quantum.htm

ASAP: An Automatic Algorithm Selection Approach for Planning

Despite the advances made in the last decade in automated planning, no planner out- performs all the others in every known benchmark domain. This observation motivates the idea of selecting different planning algorithms for different domains. Moreover, the planners’ performances are affected by the structure of the search space, which depends on the encoding of the considered domain. In many domains, the performance of a plan- ner can be improved by exploiting additional knowledge, for instance, in the form of macro-operators or entanglements. In this paper we propose ASAP, an automatic Algorithm Selection Approach for Planning that: (i) for a given domain initially learns additional knowledge, in the form of macro-operators and entanglements, which is used for creating different encodings of the given planning domain and problems, and (ii) explores the 2 dimensional space of available algorithms, defined as encodings–planners couples, and then (iii) selects the most promising algorithm for optimising either the runtimes or the quality of the solution plans