The First Western New York Theory Day

The First Western New York Theory Day
Friday, April 20, 2007

Introduction

The Western New York Theory Day series is a joint project of the theory groups at Rochester Institute of Technology, the University at Buffalo, and the University of Rochester. The meetings are twice-yearly and rotate between the three schools. The two "visiting" schools usually provide the speakers.

These meetings bring people together in a friendly, informal atmosphere to hear about recent research advances in theoretical computer science. The meetings are open to the public, and all are warmly invited to attend.

Program

9:30 -9:45 Coffee and bagels
9:45 -10:45 Liyu Zhang, University at Buffalo
The Informational Content of Canonical Disjoint NP-Pairs
11:00 -12:00 Jonathan Buss, University of Waterloo
Hardness of Fixed-Parameter Problems: A Simple Approach
12:00 -1:45 Lunch break
1:45 -2:45 Piotr Faliszewski, University of Rochester
The Complexity of Bribery in Elections
3:00 -4:00 Mitsunori Ogihara, University of Rochester
Time and Space Complexity for Splicing Systems

Location

The Theory Day will be held at
Room 70-3000 (the CS conference room; 3rd floor)
Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences
Rochester Institute of Technology
102 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623-5608.

Directions to RIT

Directions to the College of Computing and Information Sciences (building 70), and on Parking and Getting a Visitor's Parking Pass.

Organizers

Edith Hemaspaandra, Rochester Institute of Technology
Lane Hemaspaandra, University of Rochester
Alan Selman, University at Buffalo

Abstracts

The Informational Content of Canonical Disjoint NP-Pairs
Liyu Zhang, University at Buffalo

  We investigate the connection between propositional proof systems
  and their canonical pairs. It is known that simulations between proof
  systems translate to reductions between their canonical pairs.
  We focus on the opposite direction and study the following questions.
  Q1: Where does the implication can(f) \le_m can(g) => f\le_s g
      hold, and where does it fail?
  Q2: Where can we find proof systems of different strengths, but
      equivalent canonical pairs?
  Q3: What do (non-)equivalent canonical pairs tell about
      the corresponding proof systems?
  Q4: Is every NP-pair (A,B), where A is NP-complete, strongly
      many-one equivalent to the canonical pair of some proof system?

  In short, we show that Q1 and Q2 can be answered with `everywhere',
  which generalizes previous results by Pudlak and Beyersdorff.
  Regarding Q3, inequivalent canonical pairs tell that the proof systems
  are not ``very similar'', while equivalent, P-inseparable canonical
  pairs tell that they are not ``very different''.

  We can relate Q4 to the open problem in structural complexity that
  asks whether unions of disjoint NP-complete sets are NP-complete.
  This demonstrates a new connection between proof systems,
  disjoint NP-pairs, and unions of disjoint NP-complete sets.

This is joint work with Christian Glasser and Alan Selman.

Hardness of Fixed-Parameter Problems: A Simple Approach
Jonathan Buss, Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo

In the setting of fixed-parameter problems, hardness of a problem is 
generally measured in terms of the "weft" of a circuit.  For example, 
the class W[1] comprises those problems reducible to weighted 
satisfiability for circuits having depth 2 and weft 1.  This approach, 
however, requires considerable effort in order to prove the basic 
completeness results.

I shall describe an alternative approach, with which one can define the 
W-hierarchy and prove completeness results without any mention of "weft" 
at all.  The proofs follow closely the Cook/Karp proofs of the basic 
results of NP-completeness -- they use encodings of machine computations 
to give "generic" reductions.

I shall outline how this approach has led to improvements in both upper 
bounds (e.g., SubsetSum) and lower bounds (e.g., for some problems 
regarding automata).

This is joint work with T. Islam.

The Complexity of Bribery in Elections
Piotr Faliszewski, University of Rochester

Recently, social choice theory has received significant attention from
the AI community.  Researchers are solving planning problems via
conducting elections between different alternatives, web search-engines
use preference aggregation mechanism to combine rankings obtained
through different criteria, and people envision societies of independent
autonomous agents more and more vigorously. As a result, it is important
to study the security of election systems and voting rules. One of the
identified dangers for elections is bribery, i.e., the situation where
an agent tries to affect the result of an election via convincing other
agents to vote as he or she says. In this talk I will discuss the
problem of bribery in elections from the computational perspective: I
will show both election systems that are susceptible and resistant to
bribery (i.e., election systems for which the problem of finding an
optimal bribery is either in P or NP-hard) and I will present
connections between bribery and strategic voting.

This is joint work with Edith Hemaspaandra and Lane A. Hemaspaandra.

Time and Space Complexity for Splicing Systems
Mitsunori Ogihara, University of Rochester

The splicing system is a computational model in which words  
are produced by "word splicing"---a process that cuts any pair of  
words with certain patterns into two parts and then swaps the second  
part between the two.   The splicing model, though known to be as  
powerful as the Turing machine model, has never been studied from a  
complexity theoretic viewpoint.   In this talk I propose a notion of  
time complexity as well as a notion of space complexity, and then  
show some lower and upper bound results.   In particular, I will  
show: (1) the languages produced by splicing systems having time  
complexity f(n) are accepted by f(n)-space-bounded one-way  
nondeterministic Turing machines, (2) the languages produced by  
splicing systems having time complexity f(n) include the languages  
accepted by pushdown automata with accepting computation paths in  
which stack height never exceeds f(n), and (3) the languages produced  
by splicing systems having polynomial space complexity are precisely  
those in NP.

This is joint work with Remco Loos.