Given two finite digraphs \(G\) and \(H\) is there a homomorphism \(h: G \longrightarrow H\)?
We fix a target digraph \(H\) and ask which digraphs admit a homomorphism to \(H\), \(CSP(H)= HOM(H) =\{G: G\longrightarrow H\}\)
Given two finite digraphs \(G\) and \(H\) is there a homomorphism \(h: G \longrightarrow H\)?
We fix a target digraph \(H\) and ask which digraphs admit a homomorphism to \(H\), \(CSP(H)= HOM(H) =\{G: G\longrightarrow H\}\)
Example: The 2-colourability problem is equivalent to \(CSP(K_2)\).

\(CSP(H_c)\) - retraction problem:
given a digraph \(G\) containing a copy of \(H\), decide if \(G\) retracts to \(H\).
If \(H=(H, E(H))\), then \(H_c=(H; E(H), \{c_1\}, \{c_2\}, \dots \{c_n\})\)
\(CSP(H_c)\) - retraction problem:
given a digraph \(G\) containing a copy of \(H\), decide if \(G\) retracts to \(H\).
If \(H=(H, E(H))\), then \(H_c=(H; E(H), \{c_1\}, \{c_2\}, \dots \{c_n\})\)
\(CSP(H_u)= LHOM(H)\) - list homomorphism: given \(G\) and lists \(L_x \subset H\), for each \(x\in G\), decide if there exists a homomorphism \(f: G \longrightarrow H\) s.t. \(f (x)\in L_x\)
LHOM correspond to conservative CSPs
\(CSP(H_c)\) - retraction problem:
given a digraph \(G\) containing a copy of \(H\), decide if \(G\) retracts to \(H\).
If \(H=(H, E(H))\), then \(H_c=(H; E(H), \{c_1\}, \{c_2\}, \dots \{c_n\})\)
\(CSP(H_u)= LHOM(H)\) - list homomorphism: given \(G\) and lists \(L_x \subset H\), for each \(x\in G\), decide if there exists a homomorphism \(f: G \longrightarrow H\) s.t. \(f (x)\in L_x\)
LHOM correspond to conservative CSPs
Proved by Bulatov and Zhuk (independently) in 2017.
Theorem [Bulatov/ Zhuk/ .....]: If \(\mathcal{B}\) is preserved by a weak-near-unanimity operation then \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in \(\mathbf{P}\), otherwise it is \(\mathbf{NP}\)-complete.
A weak-near-unanimity operation is an \(n\)-ary operation \(w\) s.t.
$$w(x, y, y, \ldots, y)=w(y, x, y, \ldots, y)=\cdots =w(y, \ldots, y, x)$$
a digraph \(H\) being preserved by \(w\) means that \(w: H^n \longrightarrow H\) is an homorphism.
Example: Oriented paths are preserved by \(\min(x_1, \ldots, x_n)\) operation, for every \(n\ge 1\).
Example: An undirected square is not preserved by a \(\min\) operation.
Example: Oriented paths are preserved by \(\min(x_1, \ldots, x_n)\) operation, for every \(n\ge 1\).
Example: An undirected square is not preserved by a \(\min\) operation.
An \(n\)-ary operation \(f\) is
idempotent if \(f(x, \ldots, x)=x\),
symmetric if \(f(x_1, \ldots, x_n)= f(x_{\pi(1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(n)})\) for any permutation \(\pi\) of \(\{1, \ldots, n\}\),
totally symmetric (TS) if \(f(x_1, \ldots, x_n)=f(y_1,\ldots, y_n)\) whenever \(\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}=\{y_1, \ldots, y_n\}\),
near-unanimity (NU) if \(f(x, y, \ldots, y)=f(y, x, y, \ldots, y)=\cdots= f(y, \ldots, y, x)=y\)
Example: \(\min\) is a TSI operation. It can be defined of any arity we want.
A ternary operation \(m\) is majority if \(m(x, y, y)=m(y, x, y)=m(y, y, x)=y\).
Example: The undirected 3-path is preserved by a majority.
Example: The undirected 6-cycle is not preserved by a majority.
A ternary operation \(m\) is majority if \(m(x, y, y)=m(y, x, y)=m(y, y, x)=y\).
Example: The undirected 3-path is preserved by a majority.
Example: The undirected 6-cycle is not preserved by a majority.
To look at homomorphism, sometimes it makes sense to look at what does not admit an homomorphism to a given structure...

The idea is to justify the existence of a homomorphism by the non-existence of other homomorphisms.
If all structures \(\mathcal{A}\not\longrightarrow \mathcal{B}\) can be characterized in uniform way then we can obtain information about the complexity of \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\).
An obstruction set for a digraph \(\mathcal{B}\) is a class, \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\), of digraphs such that, for all \(\mathcal{A}\)
$$\mathcal{A}\mapsto\mathcal{B} \ \ \ {\rm iff} \ \ \mathcal{A'}\not\mapsto \mathcal{A}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \forall \mathcal{A'}\in \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}.$$
Example: If \(\mathcal{B}\) is a bipartite graph then \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) can be chosen to consist of all odd cycles.
Example: If \(\mathcal{B}\) is the transitive tournament of \(k\) vertices, we can choose \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) to consist of the directed path on \(k+1\) vertices.
A structure \(\mathcal{B}\) has "nice" duality if \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) can be chosen to be "simple":
Nice= Finite, Simple= finite. Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is a transitive tournament;
Nice= Path, Simple= consisting of "paths" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented path (Hell, Zhu'94);
Nice= Caterpillar, Simple= consisting of ... Ex: ...later...
Nice= Tree, Simple= consisting of "trees" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented tree that is preserved by a \(\min\) order (Hell, Nesestril, Zhu'96).
A structure \(\mathcal{B}\) has "nice" duality if \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) can be chosen to be "simple":
Nice= Finite, Simple= finite. Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is a transitive tournament;
Nice= Path, Simple= consisting of "paths" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented path (Hell, Zhu'94);
Nice= Caterpillar, Simple= consisting of ... Ex: ...later...
Nice= Tree, Simple= consisting of "trees" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented tree that is preserved by a \(\min\) order (Hell, Nesestril, Zhu'96).
We then have:
A structure \(\mathcal{B}\) has "nice" duality if \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) can be chosen to be "simple":
Nice= Finite, Simple= finite. Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is a transitive tournament;
Nice= Path, Simple= consisting of "paths" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented path (Hell, Zhu'94);
Nice= Caterpillar, Simple= consisting of ... Ex: ...later...
Nice= Tree, Simple= consisting of "trees" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented tree that is preserved by a \(\min\) order (Hell, Nesestril, Zhu'96).
We then have:
\(\mathcal{B}\) has finite duality iff \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is FO-definable iff \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in non-uniform \(AC^0\) (Larose, Loten, Tardif'07; Libkin'04)
if \(\mathcal{B}\) has bounded pathwidth duality then \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in NL (Dalmau'05)
A structure \(\mathcal{B}\) has "nice" duality if \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) can be chosen to be "simple":
Nice= Finite, Simple= finite. Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is a transitive tournament;
Nice= Path, Simple= consisting of "paths" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented path (Hell, Zhu'94);
Nice= Caterpillar, Simple= consisting of ... Ex: ...later...
Nice= Tree, Simple= consisting of "trees" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented tree that is preserved by a \(\min\) order (Hell, Nesestril, Zhu'96).
We then have:
\(\mathcal{B}\) has finite duality iff \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is FO-definable iff \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in non-uniform \(AC^0\) (Larose, Loten, Tardif'07; Libkin'04)
if \(\mathcal{B}\) has bounded pathwidth duality then \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in NL (Dalmau'05)
A structure \(\mathcal{B}\) has "nice" duality if \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{B}}\) can be chosen to be "simple":
Nice= Finite, Simple= finite. Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is a transitive tournament;
Nice= Path, Simple= consisting of "paths" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented path (Hell, Zhu'94);
Nice= Caterpillar, Simple= consisting of ... Ex: ...later...
Nice= Tree, Simple= consisting of "trees" Ex: \(\mathcal{B}\) is an oriented tree that is preserved by a \(\min\) order (Hell, Nesestril, Zhu'96).
We then have:
\(\mathcal{B}\) has finite duality iff \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is FO-definable iff \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in non-uniform \(AC^0\) (Larose, Loten, Tardif'07; Libkin'04)
if \(\mathcal{B}\) has bounded pathwidth duality then \(CSP(\mathcal{B})\) is in NL (Dalmau'05)
A \((mn)\)-ary operation \(f\) is m-block symmetric if \(f(S_1,\ldots, S_n)= f(T_1, \ldots, T_n)\)
whenever \(\{S_1, \ldots, S_n\}=\{T_1, \ldots, T_n\}\) , with \(S_i=\{x_{i1}, \ldots, x_{im}\}\).
\(f\) is an m-ABS operation if it is \(m\)-block symmetric and it satisfies the absorptive rule \(f(S_1, S_2, S_3, \ldots,S_n)=f(S_2, S_2, S_3, \ldots, S_n)\) whenever \(S_2\subseteq S_1\).
Example: For a fixed linear order the operation \(\min(\max(x_{11}, \ldots,x_{1m}), \ldots, \max(x_{n1}, \ldots, x_{nm}))\) is an \(m\)-ABS operation.
A \((mn)\)-ary operation \(f\) is m-block symmetric if \(f(S_1,\ldots, S_n)= f(T_1, \ldots, T_n)\)
whenever \(\{S_1, \ldots, S_n\}=\{T_1, \ldots, T_n\}\) , with \(S_i=\{x_{i1}, \ldots, x_{im}\}\).
\(f\) is an m-ABS operation if it is \(m\)-block symmetric and it satisfies the absorptive rule \(f(S_1, S_2, S_3, \ldots,S_n)=f(S_2, S_2, S_3, \ldots, S_n)\) whenever \(S_2\subseteq S_1\).
Example: For a fixed linear order the operation \(\min(\max(x_{11}, \ldots,x_{1m}), \ldots, \max(x_{n1}, \ldots, x_{nm}))\) is an \(m\)-ABS operation.
Theorem[C., Dalmau, Krokhin '08]: Tfae
For reflexive digraphs \(H\), \(MinHOM(H)\) is polynomial iff \(H\) has a Min-Max ordering. (Gupta, Hell, Karimi, Rafiey '08)
If a digraph has a Min-Max ordering then it has caterpillar duality.
For reflexive digraphs \(H\), \(MinHOM(H)\) is polynomial iff \(H\) has a Min-Max ordering. (Gupta, Hell, Karimi, Rafiey '08)
If a digraph has a Min-Max ordering then it has caterpillar duality.
An attempt at simplification
If \(H\) has caterpillar duality then it also has tree duality and so it is preserved by TSIs operations of all arities (set function)
For reflexive digraphs \(H\), \(MinHOM(H)\) is polynomial iff \(H\) has a Min-Max ordering. (Gupta, Hell, Karimi, Rafiey '08)
If a digraph has a Min-Max ordering then it has caterpillar duality.
An attempt at simplification
If \(H\) has caterpillar duality then it also has tree duality and so it is preserved by TSIs operations of all arities (set function)
From a 6-ary 2-ABS polymorphism \(f\), we obtain $$m(x, y, z)= f (x, y, z, x, y, z)$$ a majority polymorphism.
For reflexive digraphs \(H\), \(MinHOM(H)\) is polynomial iff \(H\) has a Min-Max ordering. (Gupta, Hell, Karimi, Rafiey '08)
If a digraph has a Min-Max ordering then it has caterpillar duality.
An attempt at simplification
If \(H\) has caterpillar duality then it also has tree duality and so it is preserved by TSIs operations of all arities (set function)
From a 6-ary 2-ABS polymorphism \(f\), we obtain $$m(x, y, z)= f (x, y, z, x, y, z)$$ a majority polymorphism.
So caterpillar duality implies set function and majority.
\(CSP(H_c)\) - retraction problem: given a digraph \(G\) containing a copy of \(H\), decide if \(G\) retracts to \(H\).
we use idempotent polymorphisms
\(CSP(H_c)\) - retraction problem: given a digraph \(G\) containing a copy of \(H\), decide if \(G\) retracts to \(H\).
we use idempotent polymorphisms
\(CSP(H_u)= LHOM(H)\) - list homomorphism: \(G\) and \(L_x \subset H\) for each \(x\in G\), is there a homomorphism \(f: G \longrightarrow H\) s.t. \(f (x)\in L_x\)
we use conservative polymorphisms
\(CSP(H_c)\) - retraction problem: given a digraph \(G\) containing a copy of \(H\), decide if \(G\) retracts to \(H\).
we use idempotent polymorphisms
\(CSP(H_u)= LHOM(H)\) - list homomorphism: \(G\) and \(L_x \subset H\) for each \(x\in G\), is there a homomorphism \(f: G \longrightarrow H\) s.t. \(f (x)\in L_x\)
we use conservative polymorphisms
LHOM Reflexive graphs
Theorem [Feder, Hell '98]: For a reflexive graph \(H\) the LHOM problem is solvable in polynomial time if \(H\) is an interval graph, otherwise it is NP-complete.
Theorem [C., Dalmau, Krokhin '08]: Interval graphs have caterpillar duality.
In this case, caterpillar duality = set function + majority
Retraction reflexive digraphs
Theorem [C, Dalmau, Krokhin '08]: For any reflexive digraph \(H\), tfae
Retraction reflexive digraphs
Theorem [C, Dalmau, Krokhin '08]: For any reflexive digraph \(H\), tfae
List homomorphism for undirected graphs
The majority operation was not explicit, except for trees.
Retraction reflexive digraphs
Theorem [C, Dalmau, Krokhin '08]: For any reflexive digraph \(H\), tfae
List homomorphism for undirected graphs
The majority operation was not explicit, except for trees.
Retraction reflexive digraphs
Theorem [C, Dalmau, Krokhin '08]: For any reflexive digraph \(H\), tfae
List homomorphism for undirected graphs
The majority operation was not explicit, except for trees.
Theorem: Bi-arc graphs with no loopless edge have caterpillar duality.
In this case, caterpillar duality = set function + majority
It also provides an explicit majority for a bigger family of graphs.
Theorem [Hell, Rafiey '19]: Let \(H\) be a digraph. Tfae
Theorem [Hell, Rafiey '19]: Let \(H\) be a digraph. Tfae
Bi-arc digraphs don't all have majority, so not all have caterpillar duality
Theorem: End-consistent bi-arc digraphs have caterpillar duality.
Theorem [Hell, Rafiey '19]: Let \(H\) be a digraph. Tfae
Bi-arc digraphs don't all have majority, so not all have caterpillar duality
Theorem: End-consistent bi-arc digraphs have caterpillar duality.
Even for digraphs with conservative majority it would be nice to have a better classification.
Thank you!
Given two finite digraphs \(G\) and \(H\) is there a homomorphism \(h: G \longrightarrow H\)?
We fix a target digraph \(H\) and ask which digraphs admit a homomorphism to \(H\), \(CSP(H)= HOM(H) =\{G: G\longrightarrow H\}\)
Keyboard shortcuts
| ↑, ←, Pg Up, k | Go to previous slide |
| ↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j | Go to next slide |
| Home | Go to first slide |
| End | Go to last slide |
| Number + Return | Go to specific slide |
| b / m / f | Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode |
| c | Clone slideshow |
| p | Toggle presenter mode |
| t | Restart the presentation timer |
| ?, h | Toggle this help |
| Esc | Back to slideshow |