We show that every language in NP has a probablistic verifier that checks membership proofs for it using logarithmic number of random bits and by examining a constant number of bits in the proof. If a string is in the language, then there exists a proof such that the verifier accepts with probability 1 (i.e., for every choice of its random string). For strings not in the language, the verifier rejects every provided “proof " with probability at least 1/2. Our result builds upon and improves a recent result of Arora and Safra [6] whose verifiers examine a nonconstant number of bits in the proof (though this number is a very slowly growing function of the input length). As a consequence we prove that no MAX SNP-hard problem has a polynomial time approximation scheme, unless NP=P. The class MAX SNP was defined by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis [82] and hard problems for this class include vertex cover, maximum satisfiability, maximum cut, metric TSP, Steiner trees and shortest superstring. We also improve upon the clique hardness results of Feige, Goldwasser, Lovász, Safra and Szegedy [42], and Arora and Safra [6] and shows that there exists a positive ɛ such that approximating the maximum clique size in an N-vertex graph to within a factor of N ɛ is NP-hard. 1

We prove optimal, up to an arbitrary ffl? 0, inapproximability results for Max-Ek-Sat for k * 3, maximizing the number of satisfied linear equations in an over-determined system of linear equations modulo a prime p and Set Splitting. As a consequence of these results we get improved lower bounds for the efficient approximability of many optimization problems studied previously. In particular, for Max-E2-Sat, Max-Cut, Max-di-Cut, and Vertex cover. Warning: Essentially this paper has been published in JACM and is subject to copyright restrictions. In particular it is for personal use only.

Given a collection F of subsets of S = f1; : : : ; ng, set cover is the problem of selecting as few as possible subsets from F such that their union covers S, and max k-cover is the problem of selecting k subsets from F such that their union has maximum cardinality. Both these problems are NP-hard. We prove that (1 \Gamma o(1)) ln n is a threshold below which set cover cannot be approximated efficiently, unless NP has slightly superpolynomial time algorithms. This closes the gap (up to low order terms) between the ratio of approximation achievable by the greedy algorithm (which is (1 \Gamma o(1)) ln n), and previous results of Lund and Yannakakis, that showed hardness of approximation within a ratio of (log 2 n)=2 ' 0:72 lnn. For max k-cover we show an approximation threshold of (1 \Gamma 1=e) (up to low order terms), under the assumption that P != NP .

We study the question of determining whether an unknown function has a particular property or is ffl-far from any function with that property. A property testing algorithm is given a sample of the value of the function on instances drawn according to some distribution, and possibly may query the function on instances of its choice. First, we establish some connections between property testing and problems in learning theory. Next, we focus on testing graph properties, and devise algorithms to test whether a graph has properties such as being k-colorable or having a ae-clique (clique of density ae w.r.t the vertex set). Our graph property testing algorithms are probabilistic and make assertions which are correct with high probability, utilizing only poly(1=ffl) edge-queries into the graph, where ffl is the distance parameter. Moreover, the property testing algorithms can be used to efficiently (i.e., in time linear in the number of vertices) construct partitions of the graph which corre...

The study of self-testing and self-correcting programs leads to the search for robust characterizations of functions. Here we make this notion precise and show such a characterization for polynomials. From this characterization, we get the following applications.

We show that a parallel repetition of any two-prover one-round proof system (MIP(2, 1)) decreases the probability of error at an exponential rate. No constructive bound was previously known. The constant in the exponent (in our analysis) depends only on the original probability of error and on the total number of possible answers of the two provers. The dependency on the total number of possible answers is logarithmic, which was recently proved to be almost the best possible [U. Feige and O. Verbitsky, Proc. 11th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1996, pp. 70--76].

This paper continues the investigation of the connection between proof systems and approximation. The emphasis is on proving tight non-approximability results via consideration of measures like the "free bit complexity" and the "amortized free bit complexity" of proof systems.

Abstract not found

NP = PCP(log n, 1) and related results crucially depend upon the close connection betsveen the probability with which a function passes a low degree test and the distance of this function to the nearest degree d polynomial. In this paper we study a test proposed by Rubinfeld and Sudan [29]. The strongest previously known connection for this test states that a function passes the test with probability 6 for some d> 7/8 iff the function has agreement N 6 with a polynomial of degree d. We presenta new, and surprisingly strong,analysiswhich shows thatthepreceding statementis truefor 6<<0.5. The analysis uses a version of Hilbe?l irreducibility, a tool used in the factoring of multivariate polynomials. As a consequence we obtain an alternate construction for the following proof system: A constant prover l-round proof system for NP languages in which the verifier uses O(log n) random bits, receives answers of size O(log n) bits, and has an error probability of at most 2 – 10g*-‘’. Such a proof system, which implies the NP-hardness of approximating Set Cover to within fl(log n) factors, has already been obtained by Raz and Safra [28]. Our result was completed after we heard of their claim. A second consequence of our analysis is a self testerlcorrector for any buggy program that (supposedly) computes a polynomial over a finite field. If the program is correct only on 6 fraction of inputs where 15<<0.5, then the tester/corrector determines J and generates 0(~) randomized programs, such that one of the programs is correct on every input, with high probability.

Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Notations and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Problem Formulations 4 2.1 Integer Programming Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Continuous Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Computational Complexity 12 4 Bounds and Estimates 15 5 Exact Algorithms 19 5.1 Enumerative Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2 Exact Algorithms for the Unweighted Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.3 Exact Algorithms for the Weighted Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6 Heuristics 27 6.1 Sequential Greedy Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.2 Local Search Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.3 Advanced Search Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.3.1 Simulated annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.3.2 Neural networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .