The usual story around NP-complete problems is that we do not expect polynomial-time algorithms. But that still leaves a lot of room between polynomial time and the trivial exhaustive search bound.
For many exact algorithms, progress means shaving the exponential base. For 3-SAT, the naive bound
can be improved by more careful branching to a single-exponential bound with a smaller base, such as
Later algorithms improve this further. These are still exponential, but less brutal.
This is still called single-exponential time. In this context, single-exponential means the running time has the form
For example,
Even base
A sharper question is whether an NP-complete problem can be solved in subexponential time, meaning time strictly better than
Consider a variant of vertex cover where the input graph on
But the padded problem has a subexponential algorithm in terms of the padded input size. Only vertices incident to edges matter. With at most
Trying all subsets of the active vertices takes at most
which is subexponential in
This example is artificial. It gets subexponential time by padding the input with irrelevant isolated vertices. The more interesting question is whether natural NP-complete problems have subexponential algorithms. That depends on the problem and on what parameter is used as the input size. The point is that NP-completeness alone does not tell us the exact exponential scale.