skip to main content
research-article

Explicit Optimal Hardness via Gaussian Stability Results

Published:01 November 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The results of Raghavendra [2008] show that assuming Khot’s Unique Games Conjecture [2002], for every constraint satisfaction problem there exists a generic semidefinite program that achieves the optimal approximation factor. This result is existential as it does not provide an explicit optimal rounding procedure nor does it allow to calculate exactly the Unique Games hardness of the problem.

Obtaining an explicit optimal approximation scheme and the corresponding approximation factor is a difficult challenge for each specific approximation problem. Khot et al. [2004] established a general approach for determining the exact approximation factor and the corresponding optimal rounding algorithm for any given constraint satisfaction problem. However, this approach crucially relies on results explicitly proving optimal partitions in the Gaussian space. Until recently, Borell’s result [1985] was the only nontrivial Gaussian partition result known.

In this article we derive the first explicit optimal approximation algorithm and the corresponding approximation factor using a new result on Gaussian partitions due to Isaksson and Mossel [2012]. This Gaussian result allows us to determine the exact Unique Games Hardness of MAX-3-EQUAL. In particular, our results show that Zwick’s algorithm for this problem achieves the optimal approximation factor and prove that the approximation achieved by the algorithm is ≈ 0.796 as conjectured by Zwick [1998].

We further use the previously known optimal Gaussian partitions results to obtain a new Unique Games Hardness factor for MAX-k-CSP: Using the well-known fact that jointly normal pairwise independent random variables are fully independent, we show that the UGC hardness of Max-k-CSP is ⌈(k+1)/2⌉ 2k−1, improving on results of Austrin and Mossel [2009].

References

  1. Austrin, P. 2007. Balanced Max-2-SaT might not be the hardest. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’07). ACM Press, New York, 189--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Austrin, P. and Mossel, E. 2009. Approximation resistant predicates from pairwise independence. Comput. Complex. 18, 2, 249--271. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bacon, R. 1963. Approximations to multivariate normal orthant probabilities. Ann. Math. Statist. 34, 191--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Benjamini, I., Gurel-Gurevich, O., and Peled, R. 2012. On k-wise independent distributions and Boolean functions. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Borell, C. 1985. Geometric bounds on the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck velocity process. Probab. Theory Related Fields 70, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Boros, E. and Prekopa, A. 1989. Closed form two-sided bounds for probabilities that at least r and exactly r out of n events occur. Math. Oper. Res. 14, 317--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Goemans, M. and Williamson, D. 1995. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. J. ACM 42, 6, 1115--1145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Håstad, J. 2001. Some optimal inapproximability results. J. ACM 48, 4, 798--859. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Isaksson, M. and Mossel, E. 2012. Maximally stable Gaussian partitions with discrete applications. Israel J. Math. 189, 347--396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Johnson, W. and Lindenstrauss, J. 1984. Extensions of Lipshitz mapping into Hilbert space. Contemporary Math. 26, 189--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Khot, S. 2002. On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing. 767--775. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Khot, S. and Regev, O. 2008. Vertex cover might be hard to approximate to within 2 − ε. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74, 3, 335--349. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Khot, S., Kindler, G., Mossel, E., and O’Donnell, R. 2007. Optimal inapproximability results for Max-Cut and other 2-variable CSPs? SIAM J. Comput. 37, 1, 319--357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lewin, M., Livnat, D., and Zwick, U. 2002. Improved rounding techniques for Max-Di-Cut and Max-2-Sat. In Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, 67--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Makarychev, K. and Makarychev, Y. 2012. Approximation algorithm for non-Boolean Max k-CSP. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (APPROX’12). 254--265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mossel, E. 2005. Lecture notes on fourier analysis. http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~mossel/teach/206af05/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mossel, E. 2010. Gaussian bounds for noise correlation of functions. Geom. Funct. Anal. 19, 6, 1713--1756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mossel, E., O’Donnell, R., and Oleszkiewicz, K. 2010. Noise stability of functions with low influences: Invariance and optimality. Ann. Math. 171, 295--341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Raghavendra, P. 2008. Optimal algorithms and inapproximability results for every CSP? In Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’08). 245--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Samorodnitsky, A. and Trevisan, L. 2006. Gowers uniformity, influence of variables, and PCPs. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’06). 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Zwick, U. 1998. Approximation algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems involving at most three variables per constraint. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM/SIGACT-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’98). 201--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Explicit Optimal Hardness via Gaussian Stability Results

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computation Theory
      ACM Transactions on Computation Theory  Volume 5, Issue 4
      November 2013
      103 pages
      ISSN:1942-3454
      EISSN:1942-3462
      DOI:10.1145/2539126
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2013
      • Accepted: 1 June 2013
      • Revised: 1 January 2013
      • Received: 1 June 2012
      Published in toct Volume 5, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!