DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Complexity of Unique Games and Graph Expansion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Complexity of Unique Games and Graph Expansion On the Complexity of Unique Games and Graph Expansion David Steurer A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Princeton University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Recommended for Acceptance By the Department of Computer Science Advisor: Sanjeev Arora November 2010 © Copyright by David Steurer, 2010. All rights reserved. Abstract Understanding the complexity of approximating basic optimization prob- lems is one of the grand challenges of theoretical computer science. In recent years, a sequence of works established that Khot’s Unique Games Conjecture, if true, would settle the approximability of many of these problems, making this conjecture a central open question of the field. The results of this thesis shed new light on the plausibility of the Unique Games Conjecture, which asserts that a certain optimization problem, called Unique Games, is hard to approximate in a specific regime. On the one hand, we give the first confirmation of this assertion for a re- stricted model of computation that captures the best known approximation algorithms. The results of this thesis also demonstrate an intimate connection between the Unique Games Conjecture and approximability of graph expan- sion. In particular, we show that the Unique Games Conjecture is true if the expansion of small sets in graphs is hard to approximate in a certain regime. This result gives the first sufficient condition for the truth of the conjecture based on the inapproximability of a natural combinatorial problem. On the other hand, we develop efficient approximation algorithms for cer- tain classes of Unique Games instances, demonstrating that several previously proposed variants of the Unique Games Conjecture are false. Finally, we develop a subexponential-time algorithm for Unique Games, showing that this problem is significantly easier to approximate than NP-hard problems like Max 3-Sat, Max 3-Lin, and Label Cover, which are unlikely to have subexponential-time algorithm achieving a non-trivial approximation guaran- tee. This algorithm also shows that the inapproximability results based on the Unique Games Conjecture do not rule out subexponential-time algorithms, opening the possibility for such algorithms for many basic optimization prob- lems like Max Cut and Vertex Cover. At the heart of our subexponential-time algorithm for Unique Games lies a novel algorithm for approximating the expansion of graphs across different scales, which might have applications beyond Unique Games, especially in the design of divide-and-conquer algorithms. iii Acknowledgments I am greatly indebted to my advisor Sanjeev Arora, especially for his con- stant encouragement, his willingness to spent lots of time to discuss about research with me, and his efforts to improve my writing and presenting. His taste for problems, his commitment to research, and his scientific curiosity and creativity were a great source of inspiration. I couldn’t have wished for a better advisor. I am most thankful also to Boaz Barak, Prasad Raghavendra, and Nisheeth Vishnoi for their guidance, encouragement, and collaboration. They had considerable influence on the content of this thesis. I greatly enjoyed the many discussions with them about new problems and ideas. Many thanks to Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak, Moses Charikar, Bernard Chazelle, and Russell Impagliazzo for serving on my thesis committee. Over the years, I had the great pleasure to collaborate with many terrific researchers. I owe many thanks to my coauthors Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak, Markus Bläser, Constantinos Daskalakis, Benjamin Doerr, Venkatesan Gu- ruswami, Moritz Hardt, Ishay Haviv, Thomas Holenstein, Russell Impagliazzo, Subhash Khot, Alexandra Kolla, Johannes Lengler, Yury Makarychev, William Matthews, Prasad Raghavendra, Anup Rao, Oded Regev, Peter Sanders, Prasad Tetali, Madhur Tulsiani, Nisheeth Vishnoi, Avi Wigderson, and Yuan Zhou. I greatly enjoyed working with them and I have learned a lot from them. I thank all members of the theory groups in Princeton (at the University and at the Institute for Advanced Study) for creating such a great research environment. Thanks also to the members of the Center for Computational Intractability. The lively center meetings every month and the frequent workshops were great opportunities to learn and discuss about new results. Many thanks to the Algo group at the Labortoire de Recherche en Informa- tique (LRI) for hosting me during the winter of 2008. Many thanks also to Microsoft Research New England for hosting me as an intern in the summer of 2009. It was there that Prasad Raghavendra and I started working on graph expansion. Before coming to Princeton, I spent three terrific years at Saarland Univer- sity and the Max-Planck-Institute Informatik. Many thanks to all theorists there, especially my advisors Peter Sanders (now at Karlsruher Institute of Technology) and Kurt Mehlhorn. Special thanks to the competent and helpful administrative staff at the Computer Science Department of Princeton University, especially Mitra Kelly and Melissa Lawson. iv Heartfelt thanks to all my friends. They made the time in Princeton very enjoyable. Finally, I would like to thank my family — my parents Florence and Man- fred and my brother Hendrik — for their love and support. I gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation for their financial support. v Contents 1. Introduction1 1.1. Approximation Complexity....................2 1.2. Unique Games Conjecture.....................4 1.3. Graph Expansion..........................8 1.4. Small-Set Expansion Hypothesis.................. 10 1.5. Organization of this Thesis..................... 12 2. Background 16 2.1. Optimization and Approximation................. 16 2.2. Graphs, Expansion, and Eigenvalues............... 18 2.2.1. Proof of Local Cheeger Bound............... 21 2.3. Unique Games and Semidefinite Relaxation........... 23 2.4. Unique Games Conjecture and Reductions............ 27 I. Algorithms 34 3. Unique Games with Expanding Constraint Graphs 35 3.1. Main Result............................. 35 3.2. Propagation Rounding....................... 39 3.3. Tensoring Trick........................... 40 3.4. Notes................................. 45 4. Parallel Repeated Unique Games 47 4.1. Main Result............................. 47 4.2. Rounding Nonnegative Vectors.................. 49 4.3. From Arbitrary to Nonnegative Vectors.............. 53 4.3.1. Constructing Nearly Feasible Solutions.......... 55 4.3.2. Repairing Nearly Feasible Solutions........... 57 4.4. Notes................................. 62 vi Contents 5. Subexponential Approximation Algorithms 64 5.1. Main Results............................. 64 5.1.1. Small Set Expansion.................... 66 5.1.2. Unique Games........................ 67 5.2. Subspace Enumeration....................... 68 5.2.1. Small-Set Expansion.................... 70 5.2.2. Unique Games........................ 72 5.3. Threshold Rank vs. Small-Set Expansion............. 74 5.4. Low Threshold Rank Decomposition............... 76 5.5. Putting things together....................... 77 5.6. Notes................................. 78 II. Reductions 81 6. Graph Expansion and the Unique Games Conjecture 82 6.1. Main Results............................. 83 6.1.1. Proof of Theorem 6.2.................... 84 6.2. From Small-Set Expansion to Partial Unique Games ..... 84 6.2.1. Completeness........................ 85 6.2.2. Soundness.......................... 87 6.3. From Partial Unique Games to Unique Games ......... 94 6.3.1. Completeness........................ 96 6.3.2. Soundness.......................... 97 6.4. From Unique Games to Small-Set Expansion .......... 99 6.4.1. Completeness........................ 100 6.4.2. Soundness.......................... 101 6.5. Notes................................. 105 7. Reductions between Expansion Problems 106 7.1. Main Results............................. 106 7.2. Reduction............................... 108 7.2.1. Completeness........................ 110 7.2.2. Soundness.......................... 114 7.3. Notes................................. 117 vii Contents III. Lower Bounds 118 8. Limits of Semidefinite Relaxations 119 8.1. Overview............................... 119 8.1.1. Techniques.......................... 122 8.1.2. Organization......................... 123 8.2. Proof Sketch............................. 123 8.3. Hierarchies of SDP Relaxations.................. 128 8.3.1. LHr-Relaxation........................ 128 8.3.2. SAr-Relaxation........................ 129 8.3.3. Robustness.......................... 130 8.4. Weak Gaps for Unique Games ................... 130 8.4.1. Properties of Weak Gap Instances............. 131 8.5. Integrality Gap Instance for Unique Games ........... 134 8.6. Integral Vectors........................... 134 8.7. Local Distributions for Unique Games .............. 140 8.8. Construction of SDP Solutions for E2LIN(q)........... 142 8.8.1. Vector Solution....................... 143 8.8.2. Local Distributions..................... 144 8.9. Smoothing.............................. 150 8.10. Notes................................. 156 9. Open Problems 158 Bibliography 160 viii 1. Introduction A central goal of theoretical computer science is to understand the complexity of basic computational tasks, that is, the minimum amount of computational resources (especially, time) needed to carry out such tasks. We will focus on computational tasks arising from combinatorial optimiza- tion problems. Here, the goal is to optimize a given objective function
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Strongish Planted Clique Hypothesis and Its Consequences
    The Strongish Planted Clique Hypothesis and Its Consequences Pasin Manurangsi Google Research, Mountain View, CA, USA [email protected] Aviad Rubinstein Stanford University, CA, USA [email protected] Tselil Schramm Stanford University, CA, USA [email protected] Abstract We formulate a new hardness assumption, the Strongish Planted Clique Hypothesis (SPCH), which postulates that any algorithm for planted clique must run in time nΩ(log n) (so that the state-of-the-art running time of nO(log n) is optimal up to a constant in the exponent). We provide two sets of applications of the new hypothesis. First, we show that SPCH implies (nearly) tight inapproximability results for the following well-studied problems in terms of the parameter k: Densest k-Subgraph, Smallest k-Edge Subgraph, Densest k-Subhypergraph, Steiner k-Forest, and Directed Steiner Network with k terminal pairs. For example, we show, under SPCH, that no polynomial time algorithm achieves o(k)-approximation for Densest k-Subgraph. This inapproximability ratio improves upon the previous best ko(1) factor from (Chalermsook et al., FOCS 2017). Furthermore, our lower bounds hold even against fixed-parameter tractable algorithms with parameter k. Our second application focuses on the complexity of graph pattern detection. For both induced and non-induced graph pattern detection, we prove hardness results under SPCH, improving the running time lower bounds obtained by (Dalirrooyfard et al., STOC 2019) under the Exponential Time Hypothesis. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Problems, reductions and completeness; Theory of computation → Fixed parameter tractability Keywords and phrases Planted Clique, Densest k-Subgraph, Hardness of Approximation Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2021.10 Related Version A full version of the paper is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.05555.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 20 — March 20, 2013 1 the Maximum Cut Problem 2 a Spectral
    UBC CPSC 536N: Sparse Approximations Winter 2013 Lecture 20 | March 20, 2013 Prof. Nick Harvey Scribe: Alexandre Fr´echette We study the Maximum Cut Problem with approximation in mind, and naturally we provide a spectral graph theoretic approach. 1 The Maximum Cut Problem Definition 1.1. Given a (undirected) graph G = (V; E), the maximum cut δ(U) for U ⊆ V is the cut with maximal value jδ(U)j. The Maximum Cut Problem consists of finding a maximal cut. We let MaxCut(G) = maxfjδ(U)j : U ⊆ V g be the value of the maximum cut in G, and 0 MaxCut(G) MaxCut = jEj be the normalized version (note that both normalized and unnormalized maximum cut values are induced by the same set of nodes | so we can interchange them in our search for an actual maximum cut). The Maximum Cut Problem is NP-hard. For a long time, the randomized algorithm 1 1 consisting of uniformly choosing a cut was state-of-the-art with its 2 -approximation factor The simplicity of the algorithm and our inability to find a better solution were unsettling. Linear pro- gramming unfortunately didn't seem to help. However, a (novel) technique called semi-definite programming provided a 0:878-approximation algorithm [Goemans-Williamson '94], which is optimal assuming the Unique Games Conjecture. 2 A Spectral Approximation Algorithm Today, we study a result of [Trevison '09] giving a spectral approach to the Maximum Cut Problem with a 0:531-approximation factor. We will present a slightly simplified result with 0:5292-approximation factor.
    [Show full text]
  • Tight Integrality Gaps for Lovasz-Schrijver LP Relaxations of Vertex Cover and Max Cut
    Tight Integrality Gaps for Lovasz-Schrijver LP Relaxations of Vertex Cover and Max Cut Grant Schoenebeck∗ Luca Trevisany Madhur Tulsianiz Abstract We study linear programming relaxations of Vertex Cover and Max Cut arising from repeated applications of the \lift-and-project" method of Lovasz and Schrijver starting from the standard linear programming relaxation. For Vertex Cover, Arora, Bollobas, Lovasz and Tourlakis prove that the integrality gap remains at least 2 − " after Ω"(log n) rounds, where n is the number of vertices, and Tourlakis proves that integrality gap remains at least 1:5 − " after Ω((log n)2) rounds. Fernandez de la 1 Vega and Kenyon prove that the integrality gap of Max Cut is at most 2 + " after any constant number of rounds. (Their result also applies to the more powerful Sherali-Adams method.) We prove that the integrality gap of Vertex Cover remains at least 2 − " after Ω"(n) rounds, and that the integrality gap of Max Cut remains at most 1=2 + " after Ω"(n) rounds. 1 Introduction Lovasz and Schrijver [LS91] describe a method, referred to as LS, to tighten a linear programming relaxation of a 0/1 integer program. The method adds auxiliary variables and valid inequalities, and it can be applied several times sequentially, yielding a sequence (a \hierarchy") of tighter and tighter relaxations. The method is interesting because it produces relaxations that are both tightly constrained and efficiently solvable. For a linear programming relaxation K, denote by N(K) the relaxation obtained by the application of the LS method, and by N k(K) the relaxation obtained by applying the LS method k times.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Inapproximability Results for MAX-CUT and Other 2-Variable Csps?
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 101 (2005) Optimal Inapproximability Results for MAX-CUT and Other 2-Variable CSPs? Subhash Khot∗ Guy Kindlery Elchanan Mosselz College of Computing Theory Group Department of Statistics Georgia Tech Microsoft Research U.C. Berkeley [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ryan O'Donnell∗ Theory Group Microsoft Research [email protected] September 19, 2005 Abstract In this paper we show a reduction from the Unique Games problem to the problem of approximating MAX-CUT to within a factor of αGW + , for all > 0; here αGW :878567 denotes the approxima- tion ratio achieved by the Goemans-Williamson algorithm [25]. This≈implies that if the Unique Games Conjecture of Khot [36] holds then the Goemans-Williamson approximation algorithm is optimal. Our result indicates that the geometric nature of the Goemans-Williamson algorithm might be intrinsic to the MAX-CUT problem. Our reduction relies on a theorem we call Majority Is Stablest. This was introduced as a conjecture in the original version of this paper, and was subsequently confirmed in [42]. A stronger version of this conjecture called Plurality Is Stablest is still open, although [42] contains a proof of an asymptotic version of it. Our techniques extend to several other two-variable constraint satisfaction problems. In particular, subject to the Unique Games Conjecture, we show tight or nearly tight hardness results for MAX-2SAT, MAX-q-CUT, and MAX-2LIN(q). For MAX-2SAT we show approximation hardness up to a factor of roughly :943. This nearly matches the :940 approximation algorithm of Lewin, Livnat, and Zwick [40].
    [Show full text]
  • Approximating Cumulative Pebbling Cost Is Unique Games Hard
    Approximating Cumulative Pebbling Cost Is Unique Games Hard Jeremiah Blocki Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/jblocki [email protected] Seunghoon Lee Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/lee2856 [email protected] Samson Zhou School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA https://samsonzhou.github.io/ [email protected] Abstract P The cumulative pebbling complexity of a directed acyclic graph G is defined as cc(G) = minP i |Pi|, where the minimum is taken over all legal (parallel) black pebblings of G and |Pi| denotes the number of pebbles on the graph during round i. Intuitively, cc(G) captures the amortized Space-Time complexity of pebbling m copies of G in parallel. The cumulative pebbling complexity of a graph G is of particular interest in the field of cryptography as cc(G) is tightly related to the amortized Area-Time complexity of the Data-Independent Memory-Hard Function (iMHF) fG,H [7] defined using a constant indegree directed acyclic graph (DAG) G and a random oracle H(·). A secure iMHF should have amortized Space-Time complexity as high as possible, e.g., to deter brute-force password attacker who wants to find x such that fG,H (x) = h. Thus, to analyze the (in)security of a candidate iMHF fG,H , it is crucial to estimate the value cc(G) but currently, upper and lower bounds for leading iMHF candidates differ by several orders of magnitude. Blocki and Zhou recently showed that it is NP-Hard to compute cc(G), but their techniques do not even rule out an efficient (1 + ε)-approximation algorithm for any constant ε > 0.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Point of NP-Hardness for Unique Games
    A new point of NP-hardness for Unique Games Ryan O'Donnell∗ John Wrighty September 30, 2012 Abstract 1 3 We show that distinguishing 2 -satisfiable Unique-Games instances from ( 8 + )-satisfiable instances is NP-hard (for all > 0). A consequence is that we match or improve the best known c vs. s NP-hardness result for Unique-Games for all values of c (except for c very close to 0). For these c, ours is the first hardness result showing that it helps to take the alphabet size larger than 2. Our NP-hardness reductions are quasilinear-size and thus show nearly full exponential time is required, assuming the ETH. ∗Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Supported by NSF grants CCF-0747250 and CCF-0915893, and by a Sloan fellowship. Some of this research performed while the author was a von Neumann Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, supported by NSF grants DMS-083537 and CCF-0832797. yDepartment of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. 1 Introduction Thanks largely to the groundbreaking work of H˚astad[H˚as01], we have optimal NP-hardness of approximation results for several constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs), including 3Lin(Z2) and 3Sat. But for many others | including most interesting CSPs with 2-variable constraints | we lack matching algorithmic and NP-hardness results. Take the 2Lin(Z2) problem for example, in which there are Boolean variables with constraints of the form \xi = xj" and \xi 6= xj". The largest approximation ratio known to be achievable in polynomial time is roughly :878 [GW95], whereas it 11 is only known that achieving ratios above 12 ≈ :917 is NP-hard [H˚as01, TSSW00].
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 16: Constraint Satisfaction Problems 1 Max-Cut SDP
    A Theorist's Toolkit (CMU 18-859T, Fall 2013) Lecture 16: Constraint Satisfaction Problems 10/30/2013 Lecturer: Ryan O'Donnell Scribe: Neal Barcelo 1 Max-Cut SDP Approximation Recall the Max-Cut problem from last lecture. We are given a graph G = (V; E) and our goal is to find a function F : V ! {−1; 1g that maximizes Pr(i;j)∼E[F (vi) 6= F (vj)]. As we saw before, this is NP-hard to do optimally, but we had the following SDP relaxation. 1 1 max avg(i;j)2Ef 2 − 2 yijg s.t. yvv = 1 8v Y = (yij) is symmetric and PSD Note that the second condition is a relaxation of the constraint \9xi s.t. yij = xixj" which is the constraint needed to exactly model the max-cut problem. Further, recall that a matrix being Positive Semi Definitie (PSD) is equivalent to the following characterizations. 1. Y 2 Rn×m is PSD. 2. There exists a U 2 Rm×n such that Y = U T U. 3. There exists joint random variables X1;::: Xn such that yuv = E[XuXv]. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. There exists vectors U1;:::; Un such that yvw = hUv; Uwi. Using the last characterization, we can rewrite our SDP relaxation as follows 1 1 max avg(i;j)2Ef 2 − 2 h~vi; ~vjig 2 s.t. k~vik2 = 1 Vector ~vi for each vi 2 V First let's make sure this is actually a relaxation of our original problem. To see this, ∗ ∗ consider an optimal cut F : V ! f1; −1g. Then, if we let ~vi = (F (vi); 0;:::; 0), all of the constraints are satisfied and the objective value remains the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Statement
    RESEARCH STATEMENT SAM HOPKINS Introduction The last decade has seen enormous improvements in the practice, prevalence, and usefulness of machine learning. Deep nets give our phones ears; matrix completion gives our televisions good taste. Data-driven articial intelligence has become capable of the dicult—driving a car on a highway—and the nearly impossible—distinguishing cat pictures without human intervention [18]. This is the stu of science ction. But we are far behind in explaining why many algorithms— even now-commonplace ones for relatively elementary tasks—work so stunningly well as they do in the wild. In general, we can prove very little about the performance of these algorithms; in many cases provable performance guarantees for them appear to be beyond attack by our best proof techniques. This means that our current-best explanations for how such algorithms can be so successful resort eventually to (intelligent) guesswork and heuristic analysis. This is not only a problem for our intellectual honesty. As machine learning shows up in more and more mission- critical applications it is essential that we understand the guarantees and limits of our approaches with the certainty aorded only by rigorous mathematical analysis. The theory-of-computing community is only beginning to equip itself with the tools to make rigorous attacks on learning problems. The sophisticated learning pipelines used in practice are built layer-by-layer from simpler fundamental statistical inference algorithms. We can address these statistical inference problems rigorously, but only by rst landing on tractable problem de- nitions. In their traditional theory-of-computing formulations, many of these inference problems have intractable worst-case instances.
    [Show full text]
  • Greedy Algorithms for the Maximum Satisfiability Problem: Simple Algorithms and Inapproximability Bounds∗
    SIAM J. COMPUT. c 2017 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 1029–1061 GREEDY ALGORITHMS FOR THE MAXIMUM SATISFIABILITY PROBLEM: SIMPLE ALGORITHMS AND INAPPROXIMABILITY BOUNDS∗ MATTHIAS POLOCZEK†, GEORG SCHNITGER‡ , DAVID P. WILLIAMSON† , AND ANKE VAN ZUYLEN§ Abstract. We give a simple, randomized greedy algorithm for the maximum satisfiability 3 problem (MAX SAT) that obtains a 4 -approximation in expectation. In contrast to previously 3 known 4 -approximation algorithms, our algorithm does not use flows or linear programming. Hence we provide a positive answer to a question posed by Williamson in 1998 on whether such an algorithm 3 exists. Moreover, we show that Johnson’s greedy algorithm cannot guarantee a 4 -approximation, even if the variables are processed in a random order. Thereby we partially solve a problem posed by Chen, Friesen, and Zheng in 1999. In order to explore the limitations of the greedy paradigm, we use the model of priority algorithms of Borodin, Nielsen, and Rackoff. Since our greedy algorithm works in an online scenario where the variables arrive with their set of undecided clauses, we wonder if a better approximation ratio can be obtained by further fine-tuning its random decisions. For a particular information model we show that no priority algorithm can approximate Online MAX SAT 3 ε ε> within 4 + (for any 0). We further investigate the strength of deterministic greedy algorithms that may choose the variable ordering. Here we show that no adaptive priority algorithm can achieve 3 approximation ratio 4 . We propose two ways in which this inapproximability result can be bypassed.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science the MIT Press
    Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science The MIT Press Volume 1997, Article 2 3 June 1997 ISSN 1073–0486. MIT Press Journals, Five Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142-1493 USA; (617)253-2889; [email protected], [email protected]. Published one article at a time in LATEX source form on the Internet. Pag- ination varies from copy to copy. For more information and other articles see: http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/chicago.html • http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/publications/cjtcs/ • ftp://mitpress.mit.edu/pub/CJTCS • ftp://cs.uchicago.edu/pub/publications/cjtcs • Kann et al. Hardness of Approximating Max k-Cut (Info) The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science is abstracted or in- R R R dexed in Research Alert, SciSearch, Current Contents /Engineering Com- R puting & Technology, and CompuMath Citation Index. c 1997 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Subscribers are licensed to use journal articles in a variety of ways, limited only as required to insure fair attribution to authors and the journal, and to prohibit use in a competing commercial product. See the journal’s World Wide Web site for further details. Address inquiries to the Subsidiary Rights Manager, MIT Press Journals; (617)253-2864; [email protected]. The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal in theoretical computer science. The journal is committed to providing a forum for significant results on theoretical aspects of all topics in computer science. Editor in chief: Janos Simon Consulting
    [Show full text]
  • Limits of Approximation Algorithms: Pcps and Unique Games (DIMACS Tutorial Lecture Notes)1
    Limits of Approximation Algorithms: PCPs and Unique Games (DIMACS Tutorial Lecture Notes)1 Organisers: Prahladh Harsha & Moses Charikar arXiv:1002.3864v1 [cs.CC] 20 Feb 2010 1Jointly sponsored by the DIMACS Special Focus on Hardness of Approximation, the DIMACS Special Focus on Algorithmic Foundations of the Internet, and the Center for Computational Intractability with support from the National Security Agency and the National Science Foundation. Preface These are the lecture notes for the DIMACS Tutorial Limits of Approximation Algorithms: PCPs and Unique Games held at the DIMACS Center, CoRE Building, Rutgers University on 20-21 July, 2009. This tutorial was jointly sponsored by the DIMACS Special Focus on Hardness of Approximation, the DIMACS Special Focus on Algorithmic Foundations of the Internet, and the Center for Computational Intractability with support from the National Security Agency and the National Science Foundation. The speakers at the tutorial were Matthew Andrews, Sanjeev Arora, Moses Charikar, Prahladh Harsha, Subhash Khot, Dana Moshkovitz and Lisa Zhang. We thank the scribes { Ashkan Aazami, Dev Desai, Igor Gorodezky, Geetha Jagannathan, Alexander S. Kulikov, Darakhshan J. Mir, Alan- tha Newman, Aleksandar Nikolov, David Pritchard and Gwen Spencer for their thorough and meticulous work. Special thanks to Rebecca Wright and Tami Carpenter at DIMACS but for whose organizational support and help, this workshop would have been impossible. We thank Alantha Newman, a phone conversation with whom sparked the idea of this workshop. We thank the Imdadullah Khan and Aleksandar Nikolov for video recording the lectures. The video recordings of the lectures will be posted at the DIMACS tutorial webpage http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Limits/ Any comments on these notes are always appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Inapproximability Results for MAX-CUT and Other 2-Variable Csps?
    Optimal Inapproximability Results for MAX-CUT and Other 2-variable CSPs? Subhash Khot† Guy Kindler School of Mathematics DIMACS Institute for Advanced Study Rutgers University Princeton, NJ Piscataway, NJ [email protected] [email protected] Elchanan Mossel∗ Ryan O’Donnell† Department of Statistics School of Mathematics U.C. Berkeley Institute for Advanced Study Berkeley, CA Princeton, NJ [email protected] [email protected] June 19, 2004 Preliminary version Abstract In this paper we give evidence that it is NP-hard to approximate MAX-CUT to within a factor of αGW +, for all > 0. Here αGW denotes the approximation ratio achieved by the Goemans-Williamson algorithm [22], αGW ≈ .878567. We show that the result follows from two conjectures: a) the Unique Games conjecture of Khot [33]; and, b) a very believable conjecture we call the Majority ∗Supported by a Miller fellowship in Computer Science and Statistics, U.C. Berkeley †This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under agree- ment Nos. DMS-0111298 and CCR-0324906 respectively. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Is Stablest conjecture. Our results suggest that the naturally hard “core” of MAX-CUT is the set of instances in which the graph is embedded on a high- dimensional Euclidean sphere and the weight of an edge is given by the squared distance between the vertices it connects. The same two conjectures also imply that it is NP-hard to (β+)-approximate 2 MAX-2SAT, where β ≈ .943943 is the minimum of (2 + π θ)/(3 − cos(θ)) on π ( 2 , π).
    [Show full text]