The monadic second-order logic of graphs. I. recognizable sets of finite graphs
Information and Computation
A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief
Artificial Intelligence
Reasoning about knowledge
The Complexity of First-Order and Monadic Second-Order Logic Revisited
LICS '02 Proceedings of the 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
Exact algorithms for NP-hard problems: a survey
Combinatorial optimization - Eureka, you shrink!
Parameterized Complexity Theory (Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series)
Parameterized Complexity Theory (Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series)
Handbook of Modal Logic, Volume 3 (Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning)
Handbook of Modal Logic, Volume 3 (Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning)
Does treewidth help in modal satisfiability?
MFCS'10 Proceedings of the 35th international conference on Mathematical foundations of computer science
Does Treewidth Help in Modal Satisfiability?
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
Hi-index | 0.00 |
We investigate the parameterized computational complexity of the satisfiability problem for modal logic and attempt to pinpoint relevant structural parameters which cause the problem's combinatorial explosion, beyond the number of propositional variables v. To this end we study the modality depth, a natural measure which has appeared in the literature, and show that, even though modal satisfiability parameterized by v and the modality depth is FPT, the running time's dependence on the parameters is a tower of exponentials (unless P=NP). To overcome this limitation we propose possible alternative parameters, namely diamond dimension and modal width. We show fixed-parameter tractability results using these measures where the exponential dependence on the parameters is much milder (doubly and singly exponential respectively) than in the case of modality depth thus leading to FPT algorithms for modal satisfiability with much more reasonable running times. We also give lower bound arguments which prove that our algorithms cannot be improved significantly unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis fails.