Search

Guarded Kleene Algebra with Tests (GKAT) provides a sound and complete framework to reason about trace equivalence between simple imperative programs. However, there are still several notable limitations. First, GKAT is completely agnostic with respect to the meaning of primitives, to keep equivalence decidable. Second, GKAT excludes non-local control flow such as goto, break, and return. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Control-Flow GKAT (CF-GKAT), a system that allows reasoning about programs that include non-local control flow as well as hardcoded values. CF-GKAT is able to soundly and completely verify trace equivalence of a larger class of programs, while preserving the nearly-linear efficiency of GKAT. This makes CF-GKAT suitable for the verification of control-flow manipulating procedures, such as decompilation and goto-elimination. To demonstrate CF-GKAT's abilities, we validated the output of several highly non-trivial program transformations, such as Erosa and Hendren's goto-elimination procedure and the output of Ghidra decompiler. CF-GKAT opens up the application of Kleene Algebra to a wider set of challenges, and provides an important verification tool that can be applied to the field of decompilation and control-flow transformation., Comment: Published at POPL 2025

Electoral control types are ways of trying to change the outcome of elections by altering aspects of their composition and structure [BTT92]. We say two compatible (i.e., having the same input types) control types that are about the same election system E form a collapsing pair if for every possible input (which typically consists of a candidate set, a vote set, a focus candidate, and sometimes other parameters related to the nature of the attempted alteration), either both or neither of the attempted attacks can be successfully carried out. For each of the seven general (i.e., holding for all election systems) electoral control type collapsing pairs found by Hemaspaandra, Hemaspaandra, and Menton [HHM20] and for each of the additional electoral control type collapsing pairs of Carleton et al. [CCH+ 22] for veto and approval (and many other election systems in light of that paper's Theorems 3.6 and 3.9), both members of the collapsing pair have the same complexity since as sets they are the same set. However, having the same complexity (as sets) is not enough to guarantee that as search problems they have the same complexity. In this paper, we explore the relationships between the search versions of collapsing pairs. For each of the collapsing pairs of Hemaspaandra, Hemaspaandra, and Menton [HHM20] and Carleton et al. [CCH+ 22], we prove that the pair's members' search-version complexities are polynomially related (given access, for cases when the winner problem itself is not in polynomial time, to an oracle for the winner problem). Beyond that, we give efficient reductions that from a solution to one compute a solution to the other. For the concrete systems plurality, veto, and approval, we completely determine which of their (due to our results) polynomially-related collapsing search-problem pairs are polynomial-time computable and which are NP-hard., Comment: The metadata's abstract is abridged due to arXiv.org's abstract-length limit. The paper itself has the unabridged (i.e., full) abstract

[HHM20] discovered, for 7 pairs (C,D) of seemingly distinct standard electoral control types, that C and D are identical: For each input I and each election system, I is a Yes instance of both C and D, or of neither. Surprisingly this had gone undetected, even as the field was score-carding how many std. control types election systems were resistant to; various "different" cells on such score cards were, unknowingly, duplicate effort on the same issue. This naturally raises the worry that other pairs of control types are also identical, and so work still is being needlessly duplicated. We determine, for all std. control types, which pairs are, for elections whose votes are linear orderings of the candidates, always identical. We show that no identical control pairs exist beyond the known 7. We for 3 central election systems determine which control pairs are identical ("collapse") with respect to those systems, and we explore containment/incomparability relationships between control pairs. For approval voting, which has a different "type" for its votes, [HHM20]'s 7 collapses still hold. But we find 14 additional collapses that hold for approval voting but not for some election systems whose votes are linear orderings. We find 1 additional collapse for veto and none for plurality. We prove that each of the 3 election systems mentioned have no collapses other than those inherited from [HHM20] or added here. But we show many new containment relationships that hold between some separating control pairs, and for each separating pair of std. control types classify its separation in terms of containment (always, and strict on some inputs) or incomparability. Our work, for the general case and these 3 important election systems, clarifies the landscape of the 44 std. control types, for each pair collapsing or separating them, and also providing finer-grained information on the separations., Comment: The arXiv.org metadata abstract is an abridged version; please see the paper for the full abstract

For a graph $G$ and integers $a_i\ge 1$, the expression $G \rightarrow (a_1,\dots,a_r)^v$ means that for any $r$-coloring of the vertices of $G$ there exists a monochromatic $a_i$-clique in $G$ for some color $i \in \{1,\cdots,r\}$. The vertex Folkman numbers are defined as $F_v(a_1,\dots,a_r;H) = \min\{|V(G)| : G$ is $H$-free and $G \rightarrow (a_1,\dots,a_r)^v\}$, where $H$ is a graph. Such vertex Folkman numbers have been extensively studied for $H=K_s$ with $s>\max\{a_i\}_{1\le i \le r}$. If $a_i=a$ for all $i$, then we use notation $F_v(a^r;H)=F_v(a_1,\dots,a_r;H)$. Let $J_k$ be the complete graph $K_k$ missing one edge, i.e. $J_k=K_k-e$. In this work we focus on vertex Folkman numbers with $H=J_k$, in particular for $k=4$ and $a_i\le 3$. A result by Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il and R\"{o}dl from 1976 implies that $F_v(3^r;J_4)$ is well defined for any $r\ge 2$. We present a new and more direct proof of this fact. The simplest but already intriguing case is that of $F_v(3,3;J_4)$, for which we establish the upper bound of 135 by using the $J_4$-free process. We obtain the exact values and bounds for a few other small cases of $F_v(a_1,\dots,a_r;J_4)$ when $a_i \le 3$ for all $1 \le i \le r$, including $F_v(2,3;J_4)=14$, $F_v(2^4;J_4)=15$, and $22 \le F_v(2^5;J_4) \le 25$. Note that $F_v(2^r;J_4)$ is the smallest number of vertices in any $J_4$-free graph with chromatic number $r+1$. Most of the results were obtained with the help of computations, but some of the upper bound graphs we found are interesting by themselves.

This is a commentary on, and critique of, Latif Salum's paper titled "Tractability of One-in-three $\mathrm{3SAT}$: $\mathrm{P} = \mathrm{NP}$." Salum purports to give a polynomial-time algorithm that solves the $\mathrm{NP}$-complete problem $\mathrm{X3SAT}$, thereby claiming $\mathrm{P} = \mathrm{NP}$. The algorithm, in short, fixes the polarity of a variable, carries out simplifications over the resulting formula to decide whether to keep the value assigned or flip the polarity, and repeats with the remaining variables. One thing this algorithm does not do is backtrack. We give an illustrative counterexample showing why the lack of backtracking makes this algorithm flawed., Comment: 7 pages

We critique Javier Arroyo-Figueroa's paper titled ``The existence of the Tau one-way functions class as a proof that $\mathrm{P} \neq \mathrm{NP}$,'' which claims to prove $\mathrm{P} \neq \mathrm{NP}$ by showing the existence of a class of one-way functions. We summarize our best interpretation of Arroyo-Figueroa's argument, and show why it fails to prove the existence of one-way functions. Hence, we show that Arroyo-Figueroa fails to prove $\mathrm{P} \neq \mathrm{NP}$., Comment: 5 pages

Computing theory analyzes abstract computational models to rigorously study the computational difficulty of various problems. Introductory computing theory can be challenging for undergraduate students, and the main goal of our research is to help students learn these computational models. The most common pedagogical tool for interacting with these models is the Java Formal Languages and Automata Package (JFLAP). We developed a JFLAP server extension, which accepts homework submissions from students, evaluates the submission as correct or incorrect, and provides a witness string when the submission is incorrect. Our extension currently provides witness feedback for deterministic finite automata, nondeterministic finite automata, regular expressions, context-free grammars, and pushdown automata. In Fall 2019, we ran a preliminary investigation on two sections (Control and Study) of the required undergraduate course Introduction to Computer Science Theory. The Study section used our extension for five targeted homework questions, and the Control section solved and submitted these problems using traditional means. Our results show that on these five questions, the Study section performed better on average than the Control section. Moreover, the Study section persisted in submitting attempts until correct, and from this finding, our preliminary conclusion is that minimal (not detailed or grade-based) witness feedback helps students to truly learn the concepts. We describe the results that support this conclusion as well as a related hypothesis conjecturing that with witness feedback and unlimited number of submissions, partial credit is both unnecessary and ineffective., Comment: Extended technical report for poster presentation in SIGCSE 2021

It is important to understand how the outcome of an election can be modified by an agent with control over the structure of the election. Electoral control has been studied for many election systems, but for all studied systems the winner problem is in P, and so control is in NP. There are election systems, such as Kemeny, that have many desirable properties, but whose winner problems are not in NP. Thus for such systems control is not in NP, and in fact we show that it is typically complete for $\Sigma_2^p$ (i.e., ${\rm NP}^{\rm NP}$, the second level of the polynomial hierarchy). This is a very high level of complexity. Approaches that perform quite well for solving NP problems do not necessarily work for $\Sigma_2^p$-complete problems. However, answer set programming is suited to express problems in $\Sigma_2^p$, and we present an encoding for Kemeny control., Comment: A version of this paper will appear in the Proceedings of AAAI-2019

In the context of SAT solvers, Shatter is a popular tool for symmetry breaking on CNF formulas. Nevertheless, little has been said about its use in the context of AllSAT problems: problems where we are interested in listing all the models of a Boolean formula. AllSAT has gained much popularity in recent years due to its many applications in domains like model checking, data mining, etc. One example of a particularly transparent application of AllSAT to other fields of computer science is computational Ramsey theory. In this paper we study the effect of incorporating Shatter to the workflow of using Boolean formulas to generate all possible edge colorings of a graph avoiding prescribed monochromatic subgraphs. Generating complete sets of colorings is an important building block in computational Ramsey theory. We identify two drawbacks in the na\"ive use of Shatter to break the symmetries of Boolean formulas encoding Ramsey-type problems for graphs: a "blow-up" in the number of models and the generation of incomplete sets of colorings. The issues presented in this work are not intended to discourage the use of Shatter as a preprocessing tool for AllSAT problems in combinatorial computing but to help researchers properly use this tool by avoiding these potential pitfalls. To this end, we provide strategies and additional tools to cope with the negative effects of using Shatter for AllSAT. While the specific application addressed in this paper is that of Ramsey-type problems, the analysis we carry out applies to many other areas in which highly-symmetrical Boolean formulas arise and we wish to find all of their models.

Backdoors and backbones of Boolean formulas are hidden structural properties. A natural goal, already in part realized, is that solver algorithms seek to obtain substantially better performance by exploiting these structures. However, the present paper is not intended to improve the performance of SAT solvers, but rather is a cautionary paper. In particular, the theme of this paper is that there is a potential chasm between the existence of such structures in the Boolean formula and being able to effectively exploit them. This does not mean that these structures are not useful to solvers. It does mean that one must be very careful not to assume that it is computationally easy to go from the existence of a structure to being able to get one's hands on it and/or being able to exploit the structure. For example, in this paper we show that, under the assumption that P $\neq$ NP, there are easily recognizable families of Boolean formulas with strong backdoors that are easy to find, yet for which it is hard (in fact, NP-complete) to determine whether the formulas are satisfiable. We also show that, also under the assumption P $\neq$ NP, there are easily recognizable sets of Boolean formulas for which it is hard (in fact, NP-complete) to determine whether they have a large backbone.

This paper approaches, using structural complexity theory, the question of whether there is a chasm between knowing an object exists and getting one's hands on the object or its properties. In particular, we study the nontransparency of so-called backbones. A backbone of a boolean formula $F$ is a collection $S$ of its variables for which there is a unique partial assignment $a_S$ such that $F[a_S]$ is satisfiable [MZK+99,WGS03]. We show that, under the widely believed assumption that integer factoring is hard, there exist sets of boolean formulas that have obvious, nontrivial backbones yet finding the values, $a_S$, of those backbones is intractable. We also show that, under the same assumption, there exist sets of boolean formulas that obviously have large backbones yet producing such a backbone $S$ is intractable. Furthermore, we show that if integer factoring is not merely worst-case hard but is frequently hard, as is widely believed, then the frequency of hardness in our two results is not too much less than that frequency. These results hold more generally, namely, in the settings where, respectively, one's assumption is that P $\neq$ NP $\cap$ coNP or that some problem in NP $\cap$ coNP is frequently hard.