Paper detail

Tight Lower Bounds for the Workflow Satisfiability Problem Based on the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis

The Workflow Satisfiability Problem (WSP) asks whether there exists an assignment of authorized users to the steps in a workflow specification, subject to certain constraints on the assignment. The problem is NP-hard even when restricted to just not equals constraints. Since the number of steps $k$ is relatively small in practice, Wang and Li (2010) introduced a parametrisation of WSP by $k$. Wang and Li (2010) showed that, in general, the WSP is W[1]-hard, i.e., it is unlikely that there exists a fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithm for solving the WSP. Crampton et al. (2013) and Cohen et al. (2014) designed FPT algorithms of running time $O^*(2^{k})$ and $O^*(2^{k\log_2 k})$ for the WSP with so-called regular and user-independent constraints, respectively. In this note, we show that there are no algorithms of running time $O^*(2^{ck})$ and $O^*(2^{ck\log_2 k})$ for the two restrictions of WSP, respectively, with any $c<1$, unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis fails.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.