Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Optimally Rewriting Formulas and Database Queries: A Confluence of Term Rewriting, Structural Decomposition, and Complexity

Hubie Chen, Stefan Mengel

TL;DR

This article presents an algorithm that, given a positive first-order sentence $\phi$, outputs the minimum-width sentence obtainable from $\phi$ via application of these rules, which is the first one -- of which this article is aware -- that establishes this type of understanding in such a general setting.

Abstract

A central computational task in database theory, finite model theory, and computer science at large is the evaluation of a first-order sentence on a finite structure. In the context of this task, the \emph{width} of a sentence, defined as the maximum number of free variables over all subformulas, has been established as a crucial measure, where minimizing width of a sentence (while retaining logical equivalence) is considered highly desirable. An undecidability result rules out the possibility of an algorithm that, given a first-order sentence, returns a logically equivalent sentence of minimum width; this result motivates the study of width minimization via syntactic rewriting rules, which is this article's focus. For a number of common rewriting rules (which are known to preserve logical equivalence), including rules that allow for the movement of quantifiers, we present an algorithm that, given a positive first-order sentence $φ$, outputs the minimum-width sentence obtainable from $φ$ via application of these rules. We thus obtain a complete algorithmic understanding of width minimization up to the studied rules; this result is the first one -- of which we are aware -- that establishes this type of understanding in such a general setting. Our result builds on the theory of term rewriting and establishes an interface among this theory, query evaluation, and structural decomposition theory.

Optimally Rewriting Formulas and Database Queries: A Confluence of Term Rewriting, Structural Decomposition, and Complexity

TL;DR

This article presents an algorithm that, given a positive first-order sentence , outputs the minimum-width sentence obtainable from via application of these rules, which is the first one -- of which this article is aware -- that establishes this type of understanding in such a general setting.

Abstract

A central computational task in database theory, finite model theory, and computer science at large is the evaluation of a first-order sentence on a finite structure. In the context of this task, the \emph{width} of a sentence, defined as the maximum number of free variables over all subformulas, has been established as a crucial measure, where minimizing width of a sentence (while retaining logical equivalence) is considered highly desirable. An undecidability result rules out the possibility of an algorithm that, given a first-order sentence, returns a logically equivalent sentence of minimum width; this result motivates the study of width minimization via syntactic rewriting rules, which is this article's focus. For a number of common rewriting rules (which are known to preserve logical equivalence), including rules that allow for the movement of quantifiers, we present an algorithm that, given a positive first-order sentence , outputs the minimum-width sentence obtainable from via application of these rules. We thus obtain a complete algorithmic understanding of width minimization up to the studied rules; this result is the first one -- of which we are aware -- that establishes this type of understanding in such a general setting. Our result builds on the theory of term rewriting and establishes an interface among this theory, query evaluation, and structural decomposition theory.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 16 sections, 25 theorems, 45 equations, 1 figure.

Key Result

Proposition 2.1

Suppose that $(D,\rightarrow)$ is a convergent system. Then, each element $d \in D$ has a unique normal form. Moreover, for all elements $d, e \in D$, it holds that $d \stackrel{*}{\leftrightarrow} e$ if and only if they have the same normal form.

Figures (1)

  • Figure 1: Summary of studied rules.

Theorems & Definitions (63)

  • Proposition 2.1: see BaaderN98, Lemma 2.1.8 and Theorem 2.1.9
  • Lemma 2.2: Newman42
  • Proposition 2.3
  • proof
  • Example 3.1
  • Example 3.2
  • Theorem 4.1
  • Theorem 4.2
  • Theorem 4.2
  • Theorem 4.3
  • ...and 53 more