Treewidth-Aware Complexity in ASP: Not all Positive Cycles are Equally Hard
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
It is well-know that deciding consistency for normal answer set programs (ASP) is NP-complete, thus, as hard as the satisfaction problem for classical propositional logic (SAT). The best algorithms to solve these problems take exponential time in the worst case. The exponential time hypothesis (ETH) implies that this result is tight for SAT, that is, SAT cannot be solved in subexponential time. This immediately establishes that the result is also tight for the consistency problem for ASP. However, accounting for the treewidth of the problem, the consistency problem for ASP is slightly harder than SAT: while SAT can be solved by an algorithm that runs in exponential time in the treewidth k, it was recently shown that ASP requires exponential time in k · log(k). This extra cost is due checking that there are no self-supported true atoms due to positive cycles in the program. In this paper, we refine the above result and show that the consistency problem for ASP can be solved in exponential time in k · log(λ) where λ is the minimum between the treewidth and the size of the largest strongly-connected component in the positive dependency graph of the program. We provide a dynamic programming algorithm that solves the problem and a treewidth-aware reduction from ASP to SAT that adhere to the above limit.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
6 papers.
- 2022Treewidth-aware Reductions of Normal ASP to SAT -- Is Normal ASP Harder than SAT after All?cited by 8
- 2021Utilizing Treewidth for Quantitative Reasoning on Epistemic Logic Programscited by 3
- 2023Current and Future Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Reasoningcited by 1
- 2025On the Boolean Network Theory of Datalog^negcited by 1
- 2023Characterizing Structural Hardness of Logic Programs: What makes Cycles and Reachability Hard for Treewidth?cited by 0
- 2024Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance?cited by 0
- 2025On the Boolean Network Theory of Datalog^neg21 Apr 2025
- 2024Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance?20 Aug 2024
- 2023Current and Future Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning8 Aug 2023
- 2023Characterizing Structural Hardness of Logic Programs: What makes Cycles and Reachability Hard for Treewidth?18 Jan 2023
- 2022Treewidth-aware Reductions of Normal ASP to SAT -- Is Normal ASP Harder than SAT after All?7 Oct 2022
- 2021Utilizing Treewidth for Quantitative Reasoning on Epistemic Logic Programs6 Aug 2021