1 / 25

Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz.

Introduction to PCP. Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz. Adapted from things beyond us. Introduction. In this lecture we’ll cover: Definition of PCP Prove some classical inapproximabillity results. Give a review on some other recent ones.

Download Presentation

Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Introduction to PCP Slides by Asaf Shapira & Michael Lewin & Boaz Klartag & Oded Schwartz. Adapted from things beyond us.

  2. Introduction In this lecture we’ll cover: • Definition of PCP • Prove some classical inapproximabillity results. • Give a review on some other recent ones.

  3. Review: Decision, Optimization Problems • A decision problem is a Boolean function ƒ(X), or alternatively a languageL  {0, 1}* comprising all strings for which ƒ is TRUE: L = { X  {0, 1}* | ƒ(X) } • An optimization problem is a function ƒ(X, Y) which, given X, is to be maximized (or minimized) over all possible Y’s: maxy[ ƒ(X, Y) ] • A threshold version of max-ƒ(X, Y) is the languageLt of all strings X for which there exists Y such that ƒ(X, Y)  t (transforming an optimization problem into decision)

  4. Review: The Class NP The classical definition of the class NP is as follows: We say that a language L  {0, 1}* belongs to the class NP, if there exists a Turing machine VL[referred to as a verifier] such that X  L there exists a witnessY such thatVL(X, Y) accepts, in time |X|O(1) That is, VL can verify a membership-proof of X in L in time polynomial in the length of X

  5. Review: NP-Hardness • A language L is said to be NP-hard if an efficient (polynomial-time) procedure for L can be utilized to obtain an efficient procedure for any NP-language • This definition allows efficient reduction that use the more general, Cook reduction. An efficient algorithm, translating any NP problem to a single instance of L - thereby showing that LNP-hard - is referred to as Karp reduction.

  6. Review: Characterizing NP Thm[Cook, Levin]:For any L NP there is an algorithm that, on input X, constructs in time |X|O(1), a set of Boolean functions, local-testsL,X = { j1, ..., jl }over variables y1,...,ym s.t.: • each of j1, ..., jl depends on o(1) variables • and X  L there exists an assignment A: { y1, ..., ym } a { 0, 1 }satisfying all j1, ..., jl [ note that m and l must be at most polynomial in |X| ]

  7. Approximation - Some definitions Definition: g-approximation A g-approximationof a maximization (similar for minimization) function f, is an algorithm that on input X, outputs f’(X) such that: f’(X)  f(X)/g(|X|). Definition: PTAS (polynomial time approximation scheme) We say that a maximization function f, has a PTAS, if for every g, there is a polynomial pg and a g-approximationfor f, whose running time is pg(|X|).

  8. Approximation - NP-hard? • We know that by using Cook/Karp reductions, we can show many decision problems to be NP-hard. • Can an approximation problem be NP-Hard? • One can easily show, that if there is g,for which there is a g-approximating for TSP, P=NP.

  9. Strong, PCP Characterizations of NP Thm[AS,ALMSS]: For any L NP there is a polynomial-time algorithm that, oninput X,outputs L,X = { j1, ..., jl }over y1,...,ym s.t. • each of j1, ..., jl depends on O(1) variables • X  L $ assignment A: { y1, ..., ym } a { 0, 1 } satisfying all L,X • X  L  " assignment A: { y1, ..., ym } a { 0, 1 }satisfies < ½ fraction of L,X

  10. Probabilistically-Checkable-Proofs • Hence, Cook-Levin theorem states that a verifier can efficiently verify membership-proofs for any NP language • PCP characterization of NP, in contrast, states that a membership-proof can be verified probabilistically • by choosing randomly one local-test, • accessing the small set of variables it depends on, • accept or reject accordingly • erroneously accepting a non-member only with small probability

  11. Gap Problems • A gap-problem is a maximization (or minimization) problem ƒ(X, Y), and two thresholds t1 > t2 X must be accepted if maxY[ ƒ(X, Y) ]  t1 X must be rejected if maxY[ ƒ(X, Y) ]  t2 other X’s may be accepted or rejected (don’t care) (almost a decision problem, relates to approximation)

  12. Reducing gap-Problems to Approximation Problems • Using an efficient approximation algorithm for ƒ(X, Y) to within a factor g,one can efficiently solve the corresponding gap problem gap-ƒ(X, Y), as long as t1 /t2 > g2 • Simply run the approximation algorithm.The outcome clearly determines which side of the gap the given input falls in.(Hence, proving a gap problem NP-hard translates to its approximation version, for appropriate factors )

  13. gap-SAT • Def: gap-SAT[D, v, ] is as follows: • instance: a set  = { j1, ..., jl }of Boolean-functions (local-tests)over variables y1,...,ym of range 2V • locality: each of j1, ..., jl depends on at mostD variables • Maximum-Satisfied-Fraction is the fraction of  satisfied by an assignment A: { y1, ..., ym } a 2vif this fraction • = 1  accept • < reject • D, v and  may be a function of l

  14. The PCP Hierarchy Def:L  PCP[ D, V,  ]if L is efficiently reducible to gap-SAT[ D, V,  ] • Thm[AS,ALMSS] NP  PCP[ O(1), 1, ½] [ The PCP characterization theorem above ] • Thm[ RaSa ] NP  PCP[ O(1), m, 2-m ] for m  logc n for some c > 0 • Thm[ DFKRS ]NP  PCP[ O(1), m, 2-m ] for m  logc n for any c < 1 • Conjecture[BGLR]NP  PCP[ O(1), m, 2-m ] for m  log n

  15. Optimal Characterization • One cannot expect the error-probability to be less than exponentially small in the number of bits each local-test looks at • since a random assignment would make such a fraction of the local-tests satisfied • One cannot hope for smaller than polynomially small error-probability • since it would imply less than one local-test satisfied, hence each local-test, being rather easy to compute, determines completely the outcome [ the BGLR conjecture is hence optimal in that respect]

  16. Approximating MAX-CLIQUE is NP-hard We will reduce gap-SAT to gap -CLIQUE. Given an expression  = { j1, ..., jl }of Boolean-functions over variables y1,...,ym of range 2V, Each of j1, ..., jl depends on at mostD variables, We must determine whether all the functions can be satisfied or only a fraction less than . We will construct a graph, G , such that it has a clique of size r there exists an assignment, satisfying r of the functions y1,...,ym.

  17. Definition of G For each ji , G has a vertex for every satisfying assignment of ji j1 . ji . . jl      All assignmentsto ji’s variables      Satisfying ji Not satisfying ji     

  18. Definition of G Two vertices are connected if the assignments are consistent j1 . ji . . jl      Consistent values      NOT Consistent Different values of same variable     

  19. Properties of G Lemma:w(G) = lX  L • Consider an assignment A satisfying For each i consider A's restriction to ji‘s variables The corresponding l vertexes form a clique in G • Any clique of size m in G implies an assignment satisfying m of j1, ..., jl

  20. Hardness of approximation of Max-Clique Each of the following theorems gives a hardness of approximation result of Max-Clique: • Thm[AS,ALMSS] NP  PCP[ O(1), 1, ½] • Thm[ RaSa ] NP  PCP[ O(1), m, 2-m ] for m  logc n for some c > 0 • Thm[ DFKRS ]NP  PCP[ O(1), m, 2-m ] for m  logc n for any c > 0 • Conjecture[BGLR]NP  PCP[ O(1), m, 2-m ] for m  log n

  21. Hardness of approximation of Max-3SAT We will show that if Life Is Meaningful (PNP) Max-3Sat does not have a PTAS. Given an instance of gap-SAT,  = { j1, ..., jl }, we will transform each of the ji‘s into a 3-SAT expression i. • As each of the ji‘s depends on up to D variables. The equivalent i expressions require exp(D) clauses. Since D = O(1) we still remain with a blow up of O(1) • We define the equivalent 3-SAT expression to be:  = • The number of clauses in   exp(D)  l

  22. Hardness of approximation of Max-3SAT • If X  L then there is an assignment satisfying all l Boolean functions of . Such an assignment satisfies all clauses of . • If X  L then no assignment satisfies more then l Boolean functions of .Therefore no assignment satisfies more than || - l. • Therefore solving Gap-3SAT with thresholds t1 = 1 and t2 = 1 - l/||  1 - /exp(D) is NP-Hard. • We conclude that there can be no PTAS for Max-3SAT. • Gap-3SAT is NP-Hard with thresholds 1 and 7/8+. Can be solved with thresholds 1 and 7/8.

  23. More Results Related to PCP The PCP theorem has ushered in a new era of hardness of approximation results. Here we list a few: • We showed that Max-Clique ( and equivalently Max-Independent-Set ) do not has a PTAS. It is known in addition, that to approximate it with a factor of n1- is hard unless co-RP = NP. • Chromatic Number - It is NP-Hard to approximate it within a factor of n1- unless co-RP = NP. There is a simple reduction from Max-Clique which shows that it is NP-Hard to approximate with factor n. • Chromatic Number for 3-colorable graph - NP-Hard to approximate with factor 5/3-(i.e. to differentiate between 4 and 3). Can be approximated within O(nlogO(1) n).

  24. More Results Related to PCP • Set Cover - NP-Hard to approximate it within a factor of ln n. Cannot be approximated within factor (1-)ln n unless NP  Dtime(nloglogn).

  25. More Results Related to PCP • Maximum Satisfying Linear Sub-System - The problem: Given a linear system Ax=b (A is n x m matrix ) in field F, find the largest number of equations that can be satisfied by some x. • If all equations can be satisfied the problem is in P. • If F=Q NP-Hard to approximate by factor m. Can be approximated in O(m/logm). • If F=GF(q) can be approximated by factor q (even a random assignment gives such a factor). NP-Hard to approximate within q-. Also NP-Hard for equations with only 3 variables. • For equations with only 2 variables. NP-Hard to approximated within 1.0909 but can be approximated within 1.383

More Related