@InProceedings{SharpSAT_ISAAC2024,
key = {MIT},
AUTHOR = {{MIT Hardness Group} and Josh Brunner and Erik D. Demaine and Jenny Diomidova and Timothy Gomez and Markus Hecher and Frederick Stock and Zixiang Zhou},
TITLE = {Easier Ways to Prove Counting Hard: A Dichotomy for Generalized {\#SAT}, Applied to Constraint Graphs},
BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 35th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2024)},
bookurl = {https://sites.google.com/view/isaac2024/home},
ADDRESS = {Sydney, Australia},
SERIES = {LIPIcs},
VOLUME = 322,
MONTH = {December 8--11},
YEAR = 2024,
PAGES = {51:1--51:14},
length = {14 pages},
withstudent = 1,
doi = {https://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ISAAC.2024.51},
dblp = {https://dblp.org/rec/conf/isaac/GroupBDDGHSZ24},
comments = {This paper is also available from <A HREF="https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ISAAC.2024.51">LIPIcs</A>.},
}
Equipped with these tools, we analyze the complexity of counting solutions to Constraint Graph Satisfiability (CGS), a framework previously used to prove NP-hardness (and PSPACE-hardness) of many puzzles and games. We prove CGS ASP-hard, meaning that there is a parsimonious reduction (with algorithmic bijection on solutions) from every NP search problem, which implies #P-completeness. Then we analyze CGS restricted to various subsets of features (vertex and edge types), and prove most of them either easy (in FP) or hard (#P-complete). Most of our results also apply to planar constraint graphs. CGS is thus a second powerful framework for proving problems #P-hard, with reductions requiring very few gadgets.