arxiv: v1 [cs.cc] 28 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 Searching for an algebra on CSP solutions Rustem Takhanov Nazarbayev University arxiv: v1 [cs.cc] 28 Aug 2017 Abstract. The Constraint Satisfaction Problem CSP is a problem of computing a homomorphism R Γ between two relational structures, where R is defined over a domain V and Γ is defined over a domain D. In fixed template CSPs, denoted CSPΓ, the right side structure Γ is fixed and the left side structure R is unconstrained. In the last 2 decades it was impressively revealed that reasons that make fixed template CSPs polynomially solvable are of algebraic nature, namely, those templates Γ are tractable that are preserved under certain polymorphisms p 1,..., p k. Moreover, the set of all solutions homomorphisms from R to Γ are preserved under the same p 1,..., p k. I.e. p 1,..., p k not only guide us in the decision problem, but also define algebraic properties of the solutions set. This view makes of interest the following formulation: given a prespecified finite set of algebras B whose domain is D, is it possible to present the solutions set of a CSP instance as a subalgebra of A 1... A V where A i B? We study this formulation and prove that the latter problem itself is an instance of a certain fixed-template CSP, over another template Γ B. We prove that CSPΓ B can be reduced to a certain fragment of CSPΓ, under natural assumptions on B. We also study the conditions under which CSPΓ can be reduced to CSPΓ B. Since the complexity of CSPΓ B is defined by PolΓ B, we study the relationship between PolΓ and PolΓ B. It turns out that if B is preserved by some p PolΓ, then p can be extended to a polymorphism of Γ B. In the end we demonstrate our theory on an example. 1 Introduction The constraint satisfaction problem CSP can be formalized in the variablevalue form as a problem of finding an assignment of values to a given set of variables, subject to constraints. There is also an equivalent formulation of it as a problem of finding a homomorphism h : R Γ for given two finite relational structures R and Γ. A special case, when the domain of Γ is boolean, called Satisfiability, was historically the first NP-hard problem [8], and the study of its various subproblems has been a very attractive research field since 70s. From the very beginning an interesting research topic was to identify all polynomially solvable cases when constraint relations are restricted to a given set of relations or, in the homomorphism formulation, when the second relational structure is some fixed Γ. The

2 2 R. Takhanov final result in the boolean case was obtained by Schaefer, who listed all cases for Γ when the latter problem, denoted CSPΓ, is in P all other cases were proved to be NP-complete [19]. Schaefer s proof was based on Turing reductions between different templates and was technically difficult. Further, Feder and Vardi [9] formulated the so called dichotomy hypothesis that states that for a template Γ over an arbitrary finite domain, CSPΓ is either polynomially solvable, or NP-hard. In [12] Jeavons showed that the complexity of CSPΓ is determined by the so called polymorphisms of Γ. The polymorphism of a relation ρ D n is defined as an m-ary function p : D m D such that ρ is closed under the operation p that is applied component-wise to tuples from ρ. The polymorphism of a template Γ is defined as a function that is a polymorphism of all relations in Γ. Jeavons showed that if two languages Γ and Γ have the same polymorphisms, then CSPΓ and CSPΓ are simultaneously in P, or NP-complete. The development of this line of research [5,14,17,20] lead to a conjectured description of tractable templates as those that have a system of polymorphisms of a very special kind. Very recently, a number of authors [6,18,21] independently claimed proofs of those conjectures. Playing a central role in the classification of tractable templates, polymorphisms are interesting objects by themselves. If a template Γ has a polymorphism p, without solving a CSP, we already know that the set of its solutions is preserved by p. I.e. any such polymorphism induces an algebra on the solutions set. Motivated by the latter observation, we suggest to generalize algebras induced by polymorphisms of Γ in the following way. Suppose that we have a finite set B where every element A B is an algebra, i.e. a tuple D, o A 1,..., o A k, where o A i : Dni D, i 1,..., k. Now let us assign to each variable v V an algebra A v B in such a way that if in our initial CSP we have a constraint that assigned values of variables v 1,..., v p should be in ρ, then we will require that ρ is preserved by the n i -ary operation o Av 1 i,..., o Avp i which is applied componentwise to tuples from ρ, i 1,..., k. In the language of universal algebra, the latter condition means that ρ should be a subalgebra of A v1... A vp. If we are able to find such an assignment, it can be proved that the set of all solutions of the initial CSP instance which is a subset of D V will be preserved by an operation v V applied component-wise to elements of D V. o Av i Related work. The closest to our work in ideology is the article of Green and Cohen [11]. This article introduces a new tractable class of CSPs that is based on the following idea. Suppose that D = {1,, d} and for any variable v V we are able to find a permutation π v : D D of its domain such that the resultant permuted relations in our instance become max-closed. Obviously, if h : V D is a solution of the permuted instance which we can find efficiently, then h v = πv 1 hv is a solution of the initial one. Thus, the core of the problem is to find such permutations. It turns out that the latter problem is a CSP itself, though over the set of permutations SymD, and it can be tackled via such techniques as the local consistency checking. Green and Cohen s construction is a special case of ours see example 1. If we define

3 Searching for an algebra 3 B = {A π π SymD} where for any permutation π of D we set A π = D, max π, max π x, y = π 1 maxπx, πy, then the latter assignment of variables v π v corresponds to the assignment v A πv in our framework. Our results. First we prove that a search for such an assignment v A v is equivalent to solving another fixed-template CSPΓ B and study the relationship between CSPΓ and CSPΓ B. It turns out that if the family B has a certain structure, namely, when a certain relation defined by B called a trace of B is expressible as a primitive positive formula over Γ, CSPΓ B can be reduced to CSPΓ theorems 2, 3 and corollary 1. Further we prove that if the family B is tractable, i.e. all algebras in B are tractable, and Γ is homomorphic to Γ B, then CSPΓ is reducible to CSPΓ B theorems 4 and 5. We obtain a generalization of this result which is important from the perspective of new algorithms for nonuniform CSPs theorem 6. We also study the relationship between polymorphisms of Γ and of Γ B. Though these structures are defined over different domains, we show that if p is a polymorphism of Γ and of the trace of B, then it can be extended to a polymorphism p B of Γ B. Besides such polymorphisms, Γ B can have certain endomorphisms that do not have analogs for Γ. Most of our results we formulate for a more general case, when relations of Γ are multi-sorted. This multi-sortedness of Γ is used only in the last section where we demonstate our theory on a simple example in which all relations in constraints have at most two-element projections. Organization. In Sec. 2 we give all preliminary definitions and state the theorems that we need. In subsection 2.4 we describe the construction of the lifted language, taken from [15], and we introduce a novel framework of CSPs with input prototype. In section 3 we set forth our main construction of the template Γ B and discuss its meaning. In section 4 we prove that CSPΓ B can be reduced to CSPΓ if B is preserved under all polymorphisms of Γ. In section 5 we prove the main result of the paper, that is a reduction from CSPΓ to CSPΓ B, and introduce the weak relaxations. In section 6 we show that some polymorphisms from PolΓ can be extended to polymorphisms of the new template Γ B. Subsection 6.1 is dedicated to endomorphisms of Γ B that do not have analogs in PolΓ. In the end, section 7 is dedicated to our example that demonstrates the previous theory. 2 Preliminaries Throughout the paper it is assumed that P NP. A problem is called tractable if it can be solved in polynomial time. Also, D and V are finite sets. We denote the tuples in lowercase boldface such as a = a 1,..., a k. Also for mappings h: A B and tuples a = a 1,..., a k, where a j A for j = 1,..., k, we will write b = ha 1,..., ha k simply as b = ha. Relational structures are denoted in uppercase boldface as R = R, r 1,..., r k. Let arϱ, ara stand for the arity of a relation ϱ, the size of a tuple a, respectively. The set {1,..., k} is denoted by [k]. If p 0 [arϱ], then P {p0}ϱ = {a p0 a 1,..., a k ϱ}, if p 0 < p 1 arϱ, then P {p0,p 1}ϱ = {a p0, a p1 a 1,..., a k ϱ} and etc.

4 4 R. Takhanov 2.1 Fixed template non-uniform CSPs Let us formulate the general CSP as a homomorphism problem. Definition 1. Let R = R, r 1,..., r s and R = R, r 1,..., r s be relational structures with a common signature that is arr i = arr i for every i [s]. A mapping h: R R is called a homomorphism from R to R if for every i [s] and for any x 1,..., x arri r i we have that hx 1,..., hx arr i r i. In that case, we write R h R or sometimes just R R. Definition 2. The general CSP is the following problem. Given a pair of relational structures with a common signature R = V, r 1,, r s and Γ = D, ϱ 1,, ϱ s, find a homomorphism h : R Γ. A finite relational structure Γ = D, ϱ 1,..., ϱ s over a fixed finite domain D is called a template. For such Γ we will denote by Γ without boldface a set of relations {ϱ 1,..., ϱ s } which is called the constraint language. Definition 3. Let D be a finite set and Γ a template over D. Then the fixed template CSP for template Γ, denoted CSPΓ, is defined as follows: given a relational structure R = V, r 1,..., r s of the same signature as Γ, find a homorphism h : R Γ. This framework captures many well-known problems, such as k-sat, Graph k-colouring, Digraph Unreachability and others see [12]. Definition 4. A language Γ is said to be tractable, if CSPΓ 0 is tractable for each finite Γ 0 Γ. Also, Γ is NP-hard if there is a finite Γ 0 Γ such that CSPΓ 0 is NP-hard. 2.2 Polymorphisms Any language Γ over a domain D can be associated with a set of operations on D, known as the polymorphisms of Γ [16], defined as follows. Definition 5. An operation g : D m D is a polymorphism of a relation ρ D n or g preserves ρ, or ρ is preserved by g if, for any m n-matrix [x 1,..., x n ] whose rows are all in ρ, we have that gx 1,..., gx n ρ. For any constraint language Γ over a set D, we denote by PolΓ a set of all operations on D which are polymorphisms of every ρ Γ. Jeavons [12] showed that the complexity of CSPΓ is fully determined by PolΓ which was the first step in developing the so called algebraic approach to the fixed template CSP. We will also use symbols PolΓ meaning PolΓ.

5 Searching for an algebra Multi-sorted CSPs Definitions below are taken from [4]. Definition 6. For any finite collection of finite domains D = {D i i I}, and any list of indices i 1, i 2,..., i m I, a subset ρ of D i1 D i2 D im, together with the list i 1, i 2,..., i m, is called a multi-sorted relation over D with the arity m and signature i 1, i 2,..., i m. For any such relation ρ, the signature of ρ is denoted σρ. Definition 7. Let Γ be a set of multi-sorted relations over a collection of sets D = {D i i I}. The multi-sorted constraint satisfaction problem over Γ, denoted MCSPΓ, is defined to be the decision problem with: Instance: A quadruple V ; A; δ; C where V is a set of variables; δ is a mapping from V to I, called the domain function; C is a set of constraints, where each constraint C C is a pair s, ρ, such that s = v 1,..., v mc is a tuple of variables of length m C, called the constraint scope; ρ is an element of Γ with the arity m C and signature δv 1,..., δv mc called the constraint relation. Question: Does there exist a solution, i.e., a function φ, from V to i I D i such that, for each variable v V, φv D δv, and for each constraint s, ρ C, with s = v 1,..., v m, the tuple φv 1,..., φv m belongs to ρ? It is easy to see that a fixed template CSP, given in the form of a homomorphism problem, can be formulated as a multi-sorted one over a collection of domains D = {D}. The problem of finding a homomorphism h : R Γ where R = V, r 1,..., r s and Γ = D, ϱ 1,..., ϱ s, is equivalent to the following set of contraints: {v, ϱ i i [s], v r i } 1 Definition 8. A set of multi-sorted relations, Γ, is said to be tractable, if MCSPΓ 0 is tractable for each finite subset Γ 0 Γ. Definition 9. Let D be a collection of sets. An m-ary multi-sorted operation t on D is defined by a collection of interpretations { t D D D }, where each t D is an m-ary operation on the corresponding set D. The multi-sorted operation t on D is said to be a polymorphism of an n-ary multi-sorted relation ρ over D with the signature δ1,..., δn if, for any m n-matrix [x 1,..., x n ] whose rows are all in ρ, we have t D δ1 x 1,..., t D δn x n ρ 2 For a set of multi-sorted relations Γ, MPolΓ denotes a set of all multi-sorted operations that are polymorphisms of each relation in Γ.

6 6 R. Takhanov 2.4 The lifted language Let Γ = D, ρ 1,..., ρ s be a template and R = V, r 1,..., r s be a relational structure given as an input to CSPΓ. The problem of finding a homomorphism h : R Γ can be reformulated as an instance of the multi-sorted CSP in many different ways. At the very least we can introduce for every variable v V its own unique domain D v = {v, a a D}. Thus, we get a collection of domains D = {D v v V }. For tuples a = a 1,..., a p D p and v = v 1,..., v p V p denote dv, a = v 1, a 1,..., v p, a p. Now for a relation ρ D p and v = v 1,..., v p V p we will define a multi-sorted relation ρv over D with a signature v 1,..., v p via: Finally the set of constraints ρv = {dv, y y ρ} {v, ρ i v : i [s], v r i } {v, D v : v V } defines an instance of the multi-sorted CSP whose solutions are in one-to-one correspondence with homomorphisms from R to Γ. Finally, we construct the language Γ R which is called the lifted language that consists of multi-sorted relations over D: Γ R = {ρ i v : i [s], v r i } {D v : v V } Note that the lifted language Γ R contains all information about a pair R, Γ. After ordering its relations we get the template Γ R. This language first appeared in the context of the hybrid CSPs which is an extension of the fixed-template CSP framework [15]. The following lemma plays a key role in our paper. It shows that CSPΓ R is equivalent to another problem formulation called the CSP with an input prototype. Definition 10. For a given template Γ and a relational structure P, the CSP with an input prototype P is a problem, denoted CSP + P Γ, for which: a an instance is a pair R, χ where R is a relational structure and χ : R P is a homomorphism; b the goal is to find a homomorphism h : R Γ. Lemma 1. CSPΓ P is polynomially equivalent to CSP + P Γ Proof. Reduction of CSPΓ P to CSP + P Γ. Let Γ = D, ρ 1,..., ρ s and P = V, r 1,..., r s be given. An instance of CSPΓ P is equivalent to a set of constraints: {v, ρ i v i [s], v r i, v f v i } where R = W, fi v i [s],v r i is an input structure whose fi v corresponds to ρ i v of Γ P. Let us make the following consistency checking of that instance: we will check that for any variable v W that is shared in two distinct constraints v 1, ρ i1 v 1

7 Searching for an algebra 7 and v 2, ρ i2 v 2 of the latter instance whether the projections of ρ i1 v 1 and ρ i2 v 2 on that variable have non-empty intersection. If they do not, we conclude that CSP does not have solutions. After that consistency checking, for our instance we can assume that there is an assignment δ : W V, that assigns each variable v W its domain D δv. Denote R = W, f 1,..., f s, where f i = v ri fi v. It is easy to see that for any v fi v its component-wise image δv is exactly the tuple v. Since v r i, we conclude R δ P. For h : W D, let us define h δ : W V D by h δ v = δv, hv. Vica versa, to every assignment h : W V D we will correspond an assignment h f x = F hx where F is a forgetting function, i.e. F v, a = a. For any assignment h : W V D that satisfies hv D δv, by construction, we have h f δ = h. It is easy to see that if h is a solution of our CSP, then h f is a solution of the following set of constraints: {v, ρ i i [s], v f i } The latter is an instance of CSP P Γ with an input structure R and a homomorphism δ : R P, and any solution s of it gives a solution s δ of the initial one. Thus, we proved that CSPΓ P can be polynomially reduced to CSP + P Γ. Reduction of CSP + P Γ to CSPΓ P. Again, Γ = D, ρ 1,..., ρ s, P = V, r 1,..., r s. Suppose we are given an instance of VCSP + R Γ with an input structure R = W, f 1,..., f s and a homomorphism δ : R P, i.e. our goal is to satisy the following constraints: {v, ρ i i [s], v f i } We can construct an instance of CSPΓ P : {v, ρ i δv i [s], v f i } It is straightforward to check that if s is a solution for this instance then h = s f is a solution for CSP + P Γ and visa versa. It remains to note that {ρ i δv i [s], v f i } Γ P. 3 Algebras induced on the solutions set In this section we will formulate the main problematics. For any input R = V, r 1,..., r s to CSPΓ let us denote HomR, Γ = {h h : R Γ} As we previously mentioned, the compexity of CSPΓ is fully determined by PolΓ. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that any polymorphism p PolΓ will also preserve the set HomR, Γ. I.e. if p is n-ary, then for any h 1,..., h n HomR, Γ, hv = ph 1 v,..., h n v will also be in HomR, Γ. Thus, p not

8 8 R. Takhanov only gives us information on the tractability of CSPΓ, but also defines an operation on HomR, Γ. The latter way of defining an algebraic structure on HomR, Γ can be directly generalized. Our idea is, instead of starting from the polymorphism p PolΓ that does not depend on the input R, to consider more general multi-sorted polymorphisms of the lifted language Γ R. Recall that a multi-sorted polymorphism m MPolΓ R should have an interpretation m Dv on every domain D v, v V and this factor adds some freedom to the definition of m. I.e., MPolΓ R is a substantially richer object than PolΓ, and the study of it can give us more information about the structure of HomR, Γ. Example 1. If D = [d] and Γ is preserved by maxx, y, then Γ is tractable [13]. A special case of CSP with such constraint language is the satisfiability problem with Horn anti-horn clauses. A generalization of this class was proposed in [11]. Suppose that R is an instance of CSPΓ and one can find such a collection of domain permutations π v : D D, v V for which the following condition will be satisfied: if v 1,..., v p r i, then {π v1 x 1,, π vp x p x 1,, x p ρ i } is preserved by maxx, y. Informally this means that we introduced a copy of a set V, denoted V, and made a change of variables, replacing v V with v V and adding the condition that h v = π v hv where h is an assignment of V that corresponds to an assignment h of V. Relations of the new CSP with variables from V will become max-closed. I.e., one can solve the new CSP and recover a solution for the initial one by hv = πv 1 h v. It can be seen that the collection π v : D D, v V induces a multisorted polymorphism m of Γ R given by the following rule: m Dv v, a, v, b = v, max πv x, y where max π x, y = π 1 maxπa, πb. Moreover, any polymorphism m MPolΓ R for which m Dv v, a, v, b = v, max π v x, y for an appropriate permutation π v defines a collection with the required property. Thus, the idea of the domain permutation reduction to max-closed languages can be understood as a problem of finding a polymorphism m MPolΓ R of a certain kind. Thus, we will be specially interested in n-ary polymorphisms m MPolΓ R for which m Dv v, a 1,..., v, a n = v, oa 1,..., a n where o will be taken from some prespecified set of operations. Below we show how this idea can be specifically implemented in the most general form, but for this purpose we will need the notion of an algebra. Suppose that we are given a list o 1,..., o k of symbols with prescribed arities n 1,..., n k. This list is called a signature and denoted σ. An algebra with a signature σ is a tuple A = D A, o A 1, o A 2,..., o A k, where D A is some finite set called the domain, o A i : D A n i D A, i [k] are operations. Let us denote by A σ D a set of algebras with one fixed signature σ and over one fixed domain D. Suppose we are given collections D = {D i i I} and B = {B i i I} where B i A σ D i and a relational structure Γ = i I D i, ρ 1,..., ρ s where ρi is a multisorted relation over D, i [s]. Let us also assume that among ρ 1,..., ρ s we have all unary relations D i, i I. For a template Γ, we will view the constraint language

9 Searching for an algebra 9 Γ as a set of multi-sorted relations over D. We will need this multi-sorted definition of Γ only in section 7. Until that section in all our constructions a reader may assume for simplicity that D = {D}. Definition 11. Let ρ be a multi-sorted relation over D with the signature i 1,, i m, i.e. ρ D i1 D im. We define the relation ρ B as a subset of B i1 B im that consists of tuples A 1,..., A m B i1 B im such that for any i [k], o A1 i, o A2 i,..., o Am i is a component-wise polymorphism of ρ. The latter condition means that for any n i m-matrix [x 1,..., x m ] whose rows are all in ρ, we have o A 1 i x 1, o A2 i x 2,..., o Am i x m ρ. Definition 12. Let Γ be a set of multi-sorted relations over a collection of sets D = {D i i I}. Then, given B = {B i i I} where B i A σ D i, we define Γ B = { ρ B ρ Γ }. Analogously, if Γ = i I D i, ρ 1,..., ρ s where ρi is a multi-sorted relation over D, i [s], then we define Γ B = i I B i, ρ B 1,, ρ B s. Now, given an instance R of CSPΓ we can redirect R to CSPΓ B. To decode the latter definitions, let us consider a case when D = {D}, i.e. we have only 1 domain D and B A σ D. Then, any h HomR, ΓB assigns to every variable v V its own algebra hv B. For j [s], v r j our assignment satisfies hv ρ B j, i.e. if v = v 1,..., v p, then o hv1 i,..., o hvp i component-wise preserves ρ j. Suppose now that for any v V we create its own copy of the domain D, i.e. D v = {v, a a D}, and define m Dv i on this copy D v, i.e.: o hv i m Dv i v, a 1,..., v, a ni = v, o hv i a 1,..., a ni as a reinterpretation of It is easy to see that m i becomes a multi-sorted polymorphism of the lifted language Γ R. Thus, every assignment h HomR, Γ B induces a system of multi-sorted polymorphisms m 1,..., m k MPolΓ R. Theorem 1. If h is a homomorphism from R to Γ B, then there is an algebra A A σ HomR,Γ such that for any i [k] and h 1,..., h ni HomR, Γ: o A i h 1,..., h ni v = o hv i h 1 v,..., h ni v Proof. We only need to check that the operations of the algebra A are defined correctly, i.e. that o A i h 1,..., h ni HomR, Γ. If h l HomR, Γ, l [n i ], then for j [s], v r j, we have that h l v ρ j. But since h HomR, Γ B, we also have that hv ρ B j. I.e. if v = v 1,..., v p, then o hv1 i,..., o hvp i component-wise preserves ρ j. From the latter we obtain that o hv1 i h 1 v 1,..., h ni v 1,..., o hvp i h 1 v p,..., h ni v p Thus, o A i h 1,..., h ni v ρ j and o A i h 1,..., h ni HomR, Γ. ρ j Thus, searching for an assignment h HomR, Γ B is also equivalent to searching for an algebra on HomR, Γ of a special kind. Our paper is dedicated to the study of the relationship between the problems CSPΓ and CSPΓ B.

10 10 R. Takhanov 4 A reduction for CSPΓ B As in the previous section, we are given Γ = i I D i, ρ 1,..., ρ s where ρl is a multi-sorted relation over D = {D i i I}, l [s] and B = {B i i I} where B i A σ D i. We assume that D i D j for i j. The latter yields that B i B j =, i j. In this section we will show that under very natural conditions on B, any instance of CSPΓ B can be turned into an instance of CSPΓ. Let us introduce some natural definitions that will surve our purpose. The number of elements in D i is denoted as d i. Given n, let α n 1, α n 2,..., α n d n i be a lexicographic ordering of Di n. Definition 13. A trace of B i, denoted T rb i, is a relation { o A 1 α n1 1,, o A 1 α n1 d n1 i,, o A k α nk 1,, o A k α nk d n k i } A B i. The arity of T rb i is κb i = k s=1 dns i. Given a number n and m-ary relation ρ over D with signature i 1,, i m, let us denote ρ n a set of all tuples x 1,..., x m, where x l D n i l, l [m], such that all rows of a matrix [x 1,..., x m ] are in ρ. Also, Γ B = i I D i, ρ 1,, ρ s, [T rb i ] i I Theorem 2. CSPΓ B is polynomial-time reducible to CSPΓ B. Proof. Suppose that we are given an instance of CSPΓ B, i.e. an input structure R = V, r 1,..., r s. Since B i B j =, i j, then we can verify that there is an assignment of domains δ : V I such that for any variable v V if, v, r l where v participates at pth place, then P {p} ρ B l B δv. The latter can be done via a linear algorithm that reads the tuple, v, r l and assigns to v a unique domain B i for which P {p} ρ B l B i. If after reading all tuples, there is a variable that is assigned with two different domains B i, B j, i j then the solutions set is empty. Our goal is to find a homomorphism h : R Γ B, i.e. to assign any variable v V with an algebra hv B δv. For any v V, let us introduce a list of new distinct variables u v1αn1 1,, u v1αn1 d n 1 δv,, u vkα nk 1,, u vkαnk d n k δv that take their values in D δv. Thus, an assignment of the value hv to v is equivalent to assigning the latter list with the following values, correspondingly: o hv 1 α n1 1,, o hv 1 α n1 d n1 δv,, ohv k α nk 1,, o hv k α nk d n k δv. I.e. any such assignment can be modeled by adding a constraint that restricts the values of the latter list to be in T rb δv. In CSPΓ B we have constraints of the following kind: assigned values for a tuple v 1,..., v p r l should be in ρ B l, i.e. o hv1 j,..., o hvp j should componentwise preserve ρ l for j [k]. The latter means that for any x 1,..., x p ρ nj l,

11 Searching for an algebra 11 we have o hv1 j x 1,..., o hvp j x p ρ l. Thus, for any l [s], j [k], and any v 1,..., v p r l, x 1,..., x p ρ nj l, we restrict u v1jx 1,..., u vpjx p to take its values in ρ l, and the latter models the initial constraints of CSPΓ B. Thus, we described, given an instance of CSPΓ B, how to define a constraint satisfaction problem with relations in constraints taken either from {T rb i } i I, or from Γ. Let us denote by Γ a set of all relations over D that can be expressed as a projection of a set HomR, Γ to a subset of variables {v 1,..., v p } V for some R, i.e. as {hv 1,..., hv p h HomR, Γ}. It is easy to see that: Corollary 1. If T rb i Γ, i I, then CSPΓ B is polynomial-time reducible to CSPΓ. Let us decode the premise of the latter corollary for a basic one-domain case: D = {D} and B A σ D. A famous fact proved by Bodnarchuk-Kalužnin-Kotov- Romov [2] and by Geiger [10] is that ϱ Γ if and only if ϱ is preserved by all polymorphisms from PolΓ. To reformulate the latter corollary using this fact, we need to introduce some definitions. Let f be an n-ary operation on D. An n-ary operation f Aσ D on A σ D is defined by the following rule: f Aσ D A1,, A n = A if and only if for any j [k], o A j x 1,..., x nj = f o A1 j x 1,..., x nj, o A2 j x 1,..., x nj,..., o An j x 1,..., x nj 3 We say that f Aσ D preserves B if f A σ D A1,..., A n B whenever A 1,..., A n B. The following lemma is obvious from the definition of the trace: Lemma 2. An operation p : D n D preserves T rb if and only if p Aσ D preserves B. From the previous lemma the following corollary is straightforward: Corollary 2. In the case of a single domain, i.e. D = {D} and B A σ D, if for any p PolΓ, p Aσ D preserves B, then CSPΓ B is polynomial-time reducible to CSPΓ. Example 2. Suppose B is a set of algebras from A σ D whose operations satisfy a prescribed set of identities of the type ux 1,..., x n = vx n+1,..., x n+m, where u, v {o 1,..., o k }, x 1,..., x n+m are variables probably repeating. It is easy to see that for any f, f Aσ D preserves B. Theorem 2 can be slightly strengthened. In order to simplify our notations we will consider a case when D = {D}, D = [d], B A σ D and in the signature { σ we have only one n-ary operation symbol o. Recall that T rb = o A α n 1,, o A α n d n A B } and ρv = {dv, y y ρ}. Let us denote Γ n = D n, ρ n 1,, ρ n s. Theorem 3. CSPΓ B is polynomial-time reducible to CSPΓ Γ n {T rbα n 1,, α n d n }.

12 12 R. Takhanov Proof. Let us return to the previous proof and to the CSP that we constructed. Since we have only one operation symbol in σ we will omit the second index in our variables. Recall that we had 2 types of constraints. The first were constraints requiring a tuple of variables u vαn1,, u vαnd n to take its values in T rb. The second were the following constraints: for any l [s] and any v 1,..., v p r l, x 1,..., x p ρ n l, u v1x 1,..., u vpx p should take its values in ρl. Thus, we need to find a homomorphism between a new pair of structures R = V, r 1,..., r s, ξ and Γ B where V = {u vx v V, x D n }, r l = { u v1x 1,..., u vpx p v1,..., v p r l, x 1,..., x p ρ n l }, ξ = {u vα n1,, u vαnd n v V }. Let us define Γ n ξ = Dn, ρ n 1,, ρ n s, ξd n where ξn D = {α n1,, α n d n }. It is easy to see that a mapping δ : V D n, where δu vx = x, is a homomorphism from R to Γ n ξ. Thus, we are given a homomorphism to Γn ξ and our goal is to find a homomorphism to Γ B which is exactly the definition of CSP + Γ Γ B. n ξ According to lemma 1, CSP + Γ Γ B is equivalent to CSPΓ B n Γ n ξ ξ. There are 2 types of relations in Γ B Γ n ξ : those that are in Γ Γ n and the relation T rb α n 1,, α n d n. gv 1,, gv d n = o v1 α n 1,, o vd n α n d n T rb. The language Γ Γ n is always tractable, because Γ n Γ and CSP + ΓnΓ is a trivial problem. Thus, CSPΓ B can become NP-hard only due to this additional relation T rbα n 1,, α n d n. 5 The reduction of CSPΓ to CSPΓ B We finished the previous section giving the conditions on B under which CSPΓ B becomes a fragment of CSPΓ. Unfortunately, tractable constraint languages occur rarely in applications. Therefore, a substitution of Γ with another template Γ e.g. Γ = Γ B for an appropriate B, and the consequences of such substitutions, could be a promising direction of research. First we will study the following problem formulation: if we managed to find a homomorphism from the input structure R to Γ B, when can it help us find h : R Γ? In subsection 2.4 we called this problem the CSP with an input prototype and denoted as CSP + Γ B Γ. It was proved to be equivalent to CSPΓ Γ B. Thus, we will start from finding conditions for the tractability of Γ Γ B. 5.1 Conditions for the tractability of Γ Γ B From the definition of the lifted language it is clear that for any relation P Γ Γ B there exists a relation ρ Γ such that P = ρa 1,, A p where A 1,, A p ρ B. Let the signature of ρ be i 1,, i p and ρ D i1 D ip. Since ρ B B i1

13 Searching for an algebra 13 B ip, we have A 1 B i1,, A p B ip. From the definition of ρa 1,, A p we obtain that: ρa 1,, A p {A 1, x 1 x 1 D i1 } {A p, x p x p D ip } i.e. any ρa 1,, A p Γ Γ B can be viewed as a multi-sorted relation over a collection of domains {{A, x x D i } i I, A B i }. For any algebra A B i let us denote by A c a copy of A, but with all operations redefined on its new unique domain D Ac = {A, x x D i } it can be done, because the rule x A, x builds a one-to-one correspondence between D i and D Ac. In the new notations, any relation from Γ Γ B becomes multi-sorted over a collection of sets { D Ac A i I B i}. Also, denote B c = { A c A i I B i}. Definition 14. For collections D and B, we define MInvB c as a set of all multi-sorted relations ρ over a collection of sets { D Ac A i I B i} such that for any i [k], an n i -ary multi-sorted operation { o Ac i A i I B i} is a polymorphism of ρ. Lemma 3. Γ Γ B understood as a multi-sorted language over a collection of domains { D Ac A i I B i} is a subset of MInvB c. Proof. Let us check that ρ i A 1,..., A p MInvB c whenever A 1,..., A p ρ B i. The latter implies that for h [k], o A1 h,..., oap h is a component-wise polymorphism of ρ i, and therefore, o Ac 1 h,..., oac p h is a component-wise polymorphism { of ρ i A 1,..., A p. From the last we conclude that the multi-sorted operation o A c h A i I B i} is a polymorphism of ρi A 1,..., A p. I.e., ρ i A 1,..., A p MInvB c. Now, after lemma 3 the following definition comes very naturally. Definition 15. A collection B = {B i i I} is called tractable if MInvB c is a tractable constraint language. Thus, using lemma 3 and the latter definition we obtain the following theorem: Theorem 4. If a collection B = {B i i I} is tractable, then CSPΓ Γ B is tractable. Remark 1. We gave a definition of the tractable collection B = {B i i I} that serves our purposes. Omitting a deeper discussion of the concept let us only mention the following alternative and equivalent definition. A subset B defines a cartesian product C = A, that is an algebra with the signature σ whose domain set is D C = D i, such that for vectors x 1 = i I A B i i I A B i x 1 i,a i I,A B i,..., x ni = x ni i,a i I,A B i D C, o C l x1,..., x ni is equal to a vector o A l x1 i,a,..., xni i,a i I,A B i, l [k]. Then, it can be shown that a collection B is tractable if and only if C is a tractable algebra i.e. Inv{o C l l [k]} is tractable. It is a well-known fact that the cartesian product of tractable algebras is tractable [5], therefore, if B i { A A σ D i A is a tractable algebra }, then B is tractable.

14 14 R. Takhanov Example 3. The latter theorem generalizes of the domain permutation reduction to max-closed languages that were discussed in example 1. Since a set a algebras B from example 1 is tractable, theorem 4 gives us the tractability of CSP + Γ B Γ lemma 1. The only problem that remains now is finding a homomorphism from an input structure to Γ B. According to [11], CSPΓ B is always tractable for boolean domains and can be intractable for general ones. Example 4. Let B 1 be a set of all tractable algebras with a domain D and signature σ = b, 2. Then, the collection {B 1 } is tractable. 5.2 The weak relaxation of Γ via Γ B As in the previous section, we are given Γ = i I D i, ρ 1,..., ρ s where ρl is a multi-sorted relation over D = {D i i I}, l [s] and B = {B i i I} where B i A σ D i. Theorem 5. If a collection B is tractable and Γ Γ B, then CSPΓ is polynomial - time Turing reducible to CSPΓ B. Proof. For an instance R of CSPΓ, if Γ Γ B, then we can replace the right template Γ with Γ B and obtain a relaxed version of the initial CSP. Suppose that we are able to solve CSPΓ B. If the solutions set of the relaxed problem is empty, then it all the more is empty for the initial one. But if we manage to find a single homomorphism from the input structure R to Γ B, then the problem of finding a homomorphism R Γ can be presented as an instance of CSP + Γ B Γ, or, by lemma 1, of CSPΓ Γ B. Now, from the tractability of B and the theorem 4 we get that CSPΓ Γ B is tractable and we efficiently find a homomorphism h : R Γ. Our next goal will be to generalize this idea and introduce the weak relaxations. Definition 16. Let I be a set of all input relational structures to CSPΓ. A partially defined operator p : I I is called an acceptable preprocessing of CSPΓ if the following conditions are satisfied: Computation of pr and if it is not defined, an answer UNDEF takes a polynomial time of R s length R Γ if and only if pr is defined and pr Γ from a homomorphism pr Γ, a homomorphism R Γ can be recovered in a polynomial time of R s length if pr = V, r 1,..., r s, then there is a mapping δ : V I computable in time polynomial of R s length such that for any l [s] and v 1,, v p r l, a signature of relation ρ l is δv 1,, δv p Remark 2. Let us give a high level motivation behind this definition. We discussed in the beginning of section 3 that finding a homomorphism R Γ B

15 Searching for an algebra 15 is equivalent to finding a multi-sorted polymorphism p MPolΓ R of a special kind. Relations {ρ i v : i [s], v r i } Γ R possess all information about our instance and remind of the variable-value record form 1 for the CSPs. Thus, we would like to allow a possibility of preprocessing the instance in order to improve the algebraic properties of MPolΓ pr. An example of such improving preprocessing was described in [7], where it was shown that for a constraint language Γ that is preserved by a pair of binary operations f, g such that fx, y, gx, y {x, y} for any x, y D and fx, y gx, y for x y, any instance of CSPΓ, after path-consistency procedure, allows such domain permutations see example 1 that all resulting relations will become submodular, i.e. both max and min closed. In example 1 we already mentioned that the domain permutation reduction to a tractable language max-closed or min,max closed is a special case of CSPΓ B for an appropriate B. Example 5. An example of an acceptable preprocessing is any standard k, l local consistency checking procedure. In this example we need to additionally require that Γ contain all relations pp-definable over Γ with arities not greater than l. That is necessary because a local consistency checking updates or, adds constraints by substituting relations in them with other relations pp-definable over Γ. If Γ has the latter property, the result of a local consistency checking is either an empty relation that indicates the absence of a homomorphism, or another instance of CSPΓ. Now we are ready to introduce the main concept. Definition 17. It is said that a collection B allows the weak relaxation of CSPΓ if there is an acceptable preprocessing p : I I such that for any R, if pr is defined, then Γ pr Γ B pr Theorem 6. If a collection B is tractable and allows the weak relaxation, then CSPΓ is polynomial-time Turing reducible to CSPΓ B. Proof. Let us describe the reduction. Let R be an instance of CSPΓ. Since B allows the weak relaxation, we will first compute pr. If pr is not defined, then the solutions set is empty. Otherwise, we are given pr = V, r 1,..., r s and a mapping δ : V I that we compute additionally. Now let us consider an instance of CSPΓ pr with the same set of variables V and the following constraints: {v 1,..., v p, ρ i v 1,..., v p i [s], v 1,..., v p r i } Let us denote after turning to the homomorphism formulation the left relational structure in the latter problem as R. It is easy to see that R is such that for an arbitrary template T with the same signature as Γ, R T pr pr T Our next goal will be to learn whether R Γ B pr, i.e. whether pr Γ B. This we can do by just giving pr as an input to CSPΓ B. In the negative

16 16 R. Takhanov case, i.e. R Γ B pr, because of Γ pr Γ B see definition 17 we pr conclude that R Γ pr, and therefore, pr Γ and R Γ. In the positive case, i.e. R Γ B pr, we will be given a homomorphism χ : pr ΓB. As in the previous theorem, given a homomorphism χ : pr Γ B the task of finding h : pr Γ is an instance of CSP + Γ B Γ, or of CSPΓ Γ B. And the latter problem is polynomially tractable due to theorem 4. From homomorphism h : pr Γ we recover h : R Γ. That is the reduction is completed. The reduction of CSPΓ to CSPΓ B makes sense only if PolΓ B has a richer algebraic structure than PolΓ. In the next section we will study this question. 6 Polymorphisms of Γ B As in the previous section, we are given collections D = {D i i I} and B = {B i i I} where B i A σ D i. We will need a collection of sets A = { A σ D i i I }. Let f = {f Di i I} be an n-ary multi-sorted operation on D = {D i i I}, i.e. for any i I, we are given f Di : D n i D i. An n-ary multi-sorted operation f A on A where f Aσ D i : A σ D i n A σ D i is defined by the following rule: f Aσ D i A 1,, A n = A if and only if for any j [k], o A j x 1,..., x nj = f Di o A1 j x 1,..., x nj, o A2 j x 1,..., x nj,..., o An j x 1,..., x nj 4 We say that f A preserves B if f Aσ D i A 1,..., A n B i whenever A 1,..., A n B i. In this case, if we restrict f Aσ D i to B i we will obtain a new operation f Bi : Bi n B i. We will denote a multi-sorted operation {f Bi i I} over B as f B. We denote Γ B = {ρ B i i [s]} where each ρb i is considered as multi-sorted over B. Theorem 7. If f MPolΓ and f A preserves B, then f B is a multi-sorted polymorphism of Γ B. Proof. It is sufficient to check that for any relation ρ such that f MPol{ρ}, f A preserves ρ B. Let f be n-ary, ρ be m-ary with signature i 1,, i m, and A i 1,, Am i ρ B, for i [n]. The latter means that for h [k], a j 1,, aj m ρ, j [n h ] we have o Ai 1 h a1 1, a 2 1,, a n h 1,..., oai m h a 1 m, a 2 m,, a n h m ρ. Now we have to prove that B 1,, B m ρ B, where B x = f Bx A 1 x,..., Ax n, x [m].

17 For fixed h, given o B1 a j 1,..., aj m ρ for j [n h ], we have h a1 1, a 2 1,, a n h 1 A fo 1 1 h a1 1, a 2 1,, a n h fo A1 m h a 1 m, a 2 m,, a n h Searching for an algebra 17,, obm h a1 m, a 2 m,..., a n h m = 1,, oan 1 h m,, o An m a1 1, a 2 1,, a n h 1,, a 1 m, a 2 m,, a n h m h Since o Ai 1 h a1 1, a 2 1,, a n h 1,..., oai m h a 1 m, a 2 m,..., a n h m ρ for i [n], and f preserves ρ, we conclude that o B1 h.,, obm h. ρ, i.e. o B1 h,, obm h is a component-wise polymorphism of ρ. The last argument can be done for any h, therefore, B 1,..., B m ρ B. The following four statements are trivial, so their proofs are omitted. Theorem Let f be n-ary and g be n 1-ary multi-sorted operations on D such that g Di x 1,..., x n 1 = f Di x 1,..., x n 1, x n 1. Then, g Aσ D i A 1,..., A n 1 = f Aσ D i A 1,..., A n 1, A n 1 identification of variables. 2. Let f be n-ary and g be n 1-ary multi-sorted operations on D such that f Di x 1,..., x n = g Di x 1,..., x n 1. Then, f Aσ D i A 1,..., A n = g Aσ D i A 1,..., A n 1 addition of fictitious variables. 3. Let f, g be n-ary multi-sorted operations on D such that g Di x 1,..., x n = f Di x π1,..., x πn for some permutation π. Then, g Aσ D i A 1,..., A n = f Aσ D i A π1,..., A πn permutation of variables. 4. For a projection on jth argument, i.e. p j x 1,..., x n = x j, p Aσ D i j projection on jth argument projections. is also a Theorem 9. Let f be n-ary and g, g 1,..., g n be m-ary multi-sorted operations on D such that g Di x 1,..., x m = f g Di Di 1 x 1,..., x m,..., gn Di x 1,..., x m. Then, g Aσ D i A 1,..., A m = f Aσ D i g A σ D i 1 A 1,..., A m,..., g Aσ D i n A 1,..., A m. Proof. For fixed i [k] we have: = f Di g Di 1 = f Di = g o Di A1 i g Di n o A1 i o A1 i σ o ga D i 1 A 1,...,A m i σ o ga D i A1,...,A m i x 1,..., x ni = x 1,..., x ni, o A2 i x 1,..., x ni,..., o Am i x 1,..., x ni = x 1,..., x ni, o A2 i x 1,..., x ni,..., o Am i x 1,..., x ni,..., x 1,..., x ni, o A2 i x 1,..., x ni,..., o Am i x 1,..., x ni = x 1,..., x ni,..., o g A σ D i n A 1,...,A m i x 1,..., x ni = = f Aσ D i g Aσ D i 1 A 1,..., A m,..., g Aσ D i n A 1,..., A m x 1,..., x ni

18 18 R. Takhanov Therefore, g Aσ D i A 1,..., A m = f Aσ D i g Aσ D i 1 A 1,..., A m,..., g Aσ D i n A 1,..., A m. These theorems have the following straightforward consequence. Theorem 10. Any term identity that involves polymorphisms f 1,..., f n MPolΓ should also hold for f A 1,..., f A n. 6.1 Endomorphisms We showed that for some multi-sorted polymorphisms of Γ it is possible to construct their analogs in MPolΓ B that maintain the same term identities as originals. The idea of constructing Γ B from a template Γ can be justified only if MPolΓ B has a richer structure than the initial MPolΓ. That is why it is of special importance to find other polymorphisms in MPolΓ B besides the latter analogs. Instead of the term unary polymorphism we will use the term endomorphism. Let us first describe the class of endomorphisms, which we will call endomorphisms of the 1st kind. Unlike the construction of f A, now we will use polymorphisms of Γ inside a term, not outside. Let f be a system of multi-sorted operations {f αβ } on D such that f αβ is n α -ary for α [k], β [n α ]. Then, let us define a unary operation a f on A = {A σ D i i I} by the following rule: a Aσ D i f A = B, where o B αx 1,, x nα = o A αf Di α1 x 1,, x nα,, f Di αn α x 1,, x nα 5 Theorem 11. If a system f is such that f αβ MPolΓ and a f preserves B, then a f MPolΓ B. Proof. Let ρ Γ be a relation with signature i 1,, i m. It is sufficient to prove that for fixed α if oα A1,, o Am α, where Aβ B iβ, β [m], componentwise preserves ρ, then o B1 α,, o Bm α, where Bβ = a f A β, also component-wise preserves ρ. Given a β 1,, aβ m ρ for β [n α ], we have o Am α o A 1 o B 1 α a 1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1 α f Di 1 α1,, obm α a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m = a1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1,, f Di 1 αn α a 1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1, f Dim α1 a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m,, fαn Dim α a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m Since f Di 1 αβ a1 1, a 2 1,, a nα Dim 1,..., fαβ a1 m, a 2 m,..., a nα m ρ for β [n α ], and o A 1 α,..., o Am α component-wise preserves ρ, we conclude that o B 1 α.,, o Bm α. ρ, i.e. o B1 α,, o Bm α is a component-wise polymorphism of ρ.

19 Searching for an algebra 19 Now we will describe a class of endomorphisms of 2nd kind. Suppose α [k] is fixed and b is a n α + 1-ary polymorphism of Γ. Let us denote by a b a unary multi-sorted operation on A such that given A A σ D i, B = a Aσ D i α,b A is such that o B β = oa β, if β α, and: o B αx 1,, x nα = b Di o A αx 1,, x nα, x 1,, x nα 6 Theorem 12. If α [k] and n α + 1-ary b MPolΓ are such that a α,b preserves B, then a α,b MPolΓ B. Proof. Let ρ Γ be a relation with signature i 1,, i m. It is sufficient to prove that if o A1 α,, o Am α, where Aβ B iβ, β [m], component-wise preserves ρ, then o B1 α,, o Bm α, where Bβ = a α,b A β, also component-wise preserves ρ. Given a β 1,, aβ m ρ for β [n α ], we have o B 1 α a 1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1,, obm α a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m = b D i1 o A 1 α a 1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1, a1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1, b Dim o Am α a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m, a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m Since o A1 α a 1 1, a 2 1,, a nα 1,..., oam α a 1 m, a 2 m,, a nα m ρ, and b Di 1,..., b Dim component-wise preserves ρ, we conclude that b Di 1.,, b Dim. ρ, i.e. o B 1 α,, o Bm α is a component-wise polymorphism of ρ. 7 Example: the 2-element case In the subsequent part we will demonstrate how our definitions can be applied to a specific case. We choose a simple constraint language, Γ, that consists of relations whose projections are at most two element. This case is well studied and the structure of tractable languages of this kind is well-known namely, it is a special case of conservative languages [3]. We choose it mainly because it includes constraint languages that cannot be solved by local algorithms i.e. linear equations modulo 2. We will choose a proper collection M, and will prove that Γ M is of bounded width i.e. has a structure that Γ lacks. 7.1 A set of algebras Suppose that we are given a finite domain D and collection of its subdomains D = {B B D, B 2}. We can view D as a collection of sets indexed by I = D. The signature of interest is σ = m, 3 i.e. an algebra with this signature has only 1 ternary operation, and A = {A σ B B D}. If B = {a} is a one-element set, let us define: M B = {A a B}

20 20 R. Takhanov where A a B = B, m, m is ternary and ma, a, a = a. For a two-element B = {a, b} D, the minority operation on B, denoted µ B, is a ternary operation µ B : B 3 B that satisfies µ B x, x, y = µ B x, y, x = µ B y, x, x = y We will also denote by µ B the ternary operation on B that satisfies xyz µ B x, y, z µ B x, y, z. Let A a B analogously, Ab B be an algebra B, m such that mx, y, z = a mx, y, z = b. The following set contains 4 algebras with domain B: M B = { B, µ B, B, µ B, A a B, A b } B Finally, we will make a relaxation of a specific Γ via the collection M = {M B B D}. The algebras B, µ B, A a B, Ab B are, obviously, tractable. Since, µ B x, y, µ B y, z, t = µ Bx, z, t, B, µ B is also tractable. Therefore, the collection M is tractable. Theorem 13. T rm B, B D is pp-definable over {B, eq} where eq = {a, a a D}. Proof. For any x, y, z B, let us view mx, y, z as a distinct variable. Let us also introduce additional variables ux for all x B. The condition mx, x, y = mx, y, x = my, x, x = uy B for any x, y B is expressible via B, eq. It is easy to see that the projection of our pp-formula to m-variables gives us T rm B. Corollary 3. Let Γ = D, ρ 1,..., ρ s be a tractable template such that any relation ρ i, i [s] is considered as a multi-sorted relation over D with the signature P {1} ρ i,, P {arρi}ρ i and x P {x} ρ i 2. Then CSPΓ M is polynomial-time reducible to CSPΓ. Proof. It follows from the corollary 1 and theorem 13. A unary relation {a}, a D is called the singleton. Theorem 14. Let Γ = D, ρ 1,..., ρ s contain all relations pp-definable over Γ with arities not greater than l = max i [s] arρ i, contain all singletons, and for any i [s], k [arρ i ], P {k} ρ i 2. Also, any relation ρ i, i [s] is considered as a multi-sorted relation over D with the signature P {1} ρ i,, P {arρi}ρ i. Then, M allows the weak relaxation of CSPΓ. Proof. Recall that to demonstrate the weak relaxation we first have to define an acceptable preprocessing p. Let us define p as 1, l local consistency checking algorithm. It works in the following way: first we turn an instance of CSPΓ with an input relational structure R into variable-value form and apply 1, l local consistency checking. If we obtain an empty relation in the process, then pr is undefined. In the opposite case, we build a new input pr in the following way: for any resulting constraint v 1,..., v k, ρ we add a tuple v 1,..., v k to a

21 Searching for an algebra 21 relation from pr whose place corresponds to that of ρ in Γ. Obviously, p is an acceptable preprocessing. Suppose that pr is defined. Let us construct a homomorphism h : Γ pr Γ M pr. Every element in the domain of Γ pr is a pair v, a where v is a variable from the domain of R, and a D. One of results of 1-local consistency checking is a special domain D v D for every variable and D v 2 the case D v > 2 means that v is absent in all constraints, we can eliminate all such variables at the preprocessing step. If a / D v, h v, a can be defined arbitrarily. If a D v, we define h v, a = v, A a D v. It remains to prove that h is a homomorphism. It is easy to see from the definition of Γ pr, that any constraint v 1,..., v k, ρ after 1-local consistency checking will correspond to a relation ρv 1,..., v k from Γ pr such that: v1, a 1,..., v k, a k ρv 1,..., v k if and only if a 1,..., a k ρ. The image of the tuple v 1, a 1,..., v k, a k under the mapping h is v 1, A a1 D v1,..., v k, A a k D vk. It is easy to see that A a1 D v1,..., A a k D vk component-wise preserves ρ. Indeed, from 1-local consistency after preprocessing we get that P {i} ρ = D vi, i [arρ] and, therefore, applying component-wise A Dv 1 a 1,..., A Dv k a k to tuples from ρ can give only a 1,..., a k which is in ρ. This yields A Dv 1 a 1,..., A Dv k a k ρ M and hv1, a 1,..., hv k, a k ρ M v 1,..., v k, and, therefore, h is a homomorphism. 7.2 The weak relaxation of bounded width The following theorem demonstrates the idea that was one of the motivations for the study of PolΓ B in the section 6, i.e. for proper B, PolΓ B can have a richer structure than PolΓ. First, we have to define the notion of languages of bounded width. Informally, Γ is said to be of bounded width if the local consistency checking is enough to identify the satisfiability of CSPΓ. But, for our purposes we will need a purely algebraic definition. Let us define first the notion of a weak near unanimity operation. Definition 18. An n-ary n 2 operation w on D is called weak nearunanimity WNU, if wx, x,..., x = x and, for all x, y D, wx, x,..., x, y = wx, x,..., x, y, x = = wy, x, x,..., x We will call Γ a core of Γ if Γ Γ, Γ Γ and all homomorphisms Γ Γ are bijections. Definition 19. A relational structure is said to be of bounded width if its core preserves WNU operations of all but finitely many arities. There is a well-known result [1] that shows that the latter definition of the bounded width is equivalent to all previously known definitions. We will use the latter one because it deals with the structure of PolΓ only. There are tractable languages over the boolean domain that are not of bounded width, e.g. CSPΓ that is equivalent to solving systems of linear equations over GF 2.