Results 1  10
of
357
Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems
 IN PROC. 33RD ANN. IEEE SYMP. ON FOUND. OF COMP. SCI
, 1992
"... 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 probabilit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 723 (45 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
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 SNPhard 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 Nvertex graph to within a factor of N ɛ is NPhard.
LEDA: A Platform for Combinatorial and Geometric Computing
, 1999
"... We give an overview of the LEDA platform for combinatorial and geometric computing and an account of its development. We discuss our motivation for building LEDA and to what extent we have reached our goals. We also discuss some recent theoretical developments. This paper contains no new technical ..."
Abstract

Cited by 674 (43 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give an overview of the LEDA platform for combinatorial and geometric computing and an account of its development. We discuss our motivation for building LEDA and to what extent we have reached our goals. We also discuss some recent theoretical developments. This paper contains no new technical material. It is intended as a guide to existing publications about the system. We refer the reader also to our webpages for more information.
Some optimal inapproximability results
, 2002
"... We prove optimal, up to an arbitrary ffl? 0, inapproximability results for MaxEkSat for k * 3, maximizing the number of satisfied linear equations in an overdetermined system of linear equations modulo a prime p and Set Splitting. As a consequence of these results we get improved lower bounds for ..."
Abstract

Cited by 660 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove optimal, up to an arbitrary ffl? 0, inapproximability results for MaxEkSat for k * 3, maximizing the number of satisfied linear equations in an overdetermined 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 MaxE2Sat, MaxCut, MaxdiCut, 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.
Property Testing and its connection to Learning and Approximation
"... We study the question of determining whether an unknown function has a particular property or is fflfar 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 fun ..."
Abstract

Cited by 430 (61 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the question of determining whether an unknown function has a particular property or is fflfar 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 kcolorable or having a aeclique (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) edgequeries 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...
Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP
 Journal of the ACM
, 1998
"... Abstract. We give a new characterization of NP: the class NP contains exactly those languages L for which membership proofs (a proof that an input x is in L) can be verified probabilistically in polynomial time using logarithmic number of random bits and by reading sublogarithmic number of bits from ..."
Abstract

Cited by 368 (28 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We give a new characterization of NP: the class NP contains exactly those languages L for which membership proofs (a proof that an input x is in L) can be verified probabilistically in polynomial time using logarithmic number of random bits and by reading sublogarithmic number of bits from the proof. We discuss implications of this characterization; specifically, we show that approximating Clique and Independent Set, even in a very weak sense, is NPhard.
Robust Characterizations of Polynomials with Applications to Program Testing
, 1996
"... The study of selftesting and selfcorrecting 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. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 332 (38 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The study of selftesting and selfcorrecting 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.
Designing Programs That Check Their Work
, 1989
"... A program correctness checker is an algorithm for checking the output of a computation. That is, given a program and an instance on which the program is run, the checker certifies whether the output of the program on that instance is correct. This paper defines the concept of a program checker. It d ..."
Abstract

Cited by 313 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A program correctness checker is an algorithm for checking the output of a computation. That is, given a program and an instance on which the program is run, the checker certifies whether the output of the program on that instance is correct. This paper defines the concept of a program checker. It designs program checkers for a few specific and carefully chosen problems in the class FP of functions computable in polynomial time. Problems in FP for which checkers are presented in this paper include Sorting, Matrix Rank and GCD. It also applies methods of modern cryptography, especially the idea of a probabilistic interactive proof, to the design of program checkers for group theoretic computations. Two strucural theorems are proven here. One is a characterization of problems that can be checked. The other theorem establishes equivalence classes of problems such that whenever one problem in a class is checkable, all problems in the class are checkable.
Free Bits, PCPs and NonApproximability  Towards Tight Results
, 1996
"... This paper continues the investigation of the connection between proof systems and approximation. The emphasis is on proving tight nonapproximability results via consideration of measures like the "free bit complexity" and the "amortized free bit complexity" of proof systems. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 203 (41 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper continues the investigation of the connection between proof systems and approximation. The emphasis is on proving tight nonapproximability results via consideration of measures like the "free bit complexity" and the "amortized free bit complexity" of proof systems.
The NPcompleteness column: an ongoing guide
 Journal of Algorithms
, 1985
"... This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & ..."
Abstract

Cited by 196 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NPcompleteness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘[G&J]’’; previous columns will be referred to by their dates). A background equivalent to that provided by [G&J] is assumed, and, when appropriate, crossreferences will be given to that book and the list of problems (NPcomplete and harder) presented there. Readers who have results they would like mentioned (NPhardness, PSPACEhardness, polynomialtimesolvability, etc.) or open problems they would like publicized, should
The Hardness of Approximate Optima in Lattices, Codes, and Systems of Linear Equations
, 1993
"... We prove the following about the Nearest Lattice Vector Problem (in any `p norm), the Nearest Codeword Problem for binary codes, the problem of learning a halfspace in the presence of errors, and some other problems. 1. Approximating the optimum within any constant factor is NPhard. 2. If for some ..."
Abstract

Cited by 155 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove the following about the Nearest Lattice Vector Problem (in any `p norm), the Nearest Codeword Problem for binary codes, the problem of learning a halfspace in the presence of errors, and some other problems. 1. Approximating the optimum within any constant factor is NPhard. 2. If for some ffl ? 0 there exists a polynomialtime algorithm that approximates the optimum within a factor of 2 log 0:5\Gammaffl n , then every NP language can be decided in quasipolynomial deterministic time, i.e., NP ` DTIME(n poly(log n) ). Moreover, we show that result 2 also holds for the Shortest Lattice Vector Problem in the `1 norm. Also, for some of these problems we can prove the same result as above, but for a larger factor such as 2 log 1\Gammaffl n or n ffl . Improving the factor 2 log 0:5\Gammaffl n to p dimension for either of the lattice problems would imply the hardness of the Shortest Vector Problem in `2 norm; an old open problem. Our proofs use reductions from fewpr...