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

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.

This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NP-completeness. 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 NP-Completeness,’ ’ 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, cross-references will be given to that book and the list of problems (NP-complete and harder) presented there. Readers who have results they would like mentioned (NP-hardness, PSPACE-hardness, polynomial-time-solvability, etc.) or open problems they would like publicized, should

We present a new technique, inspired by zero-knowledge proof systems, for proving lower bounds on approximating the chromatic number of a graph. To illustrate this technique we present simple reductions from max-3-coloring and max-3-sat, showing that it is hard to approximate the chromatic number within \Omega\Gamma N ffi ), for some ffi ? 0. We then apply our technique in conjunction with the probabilistically checkable proofs of Hastad, and show that it is hard to approximate the chromatic number to within\Omega\Gamma N 1\Gammaffl ) for any ffl ? 0, assuming NP 6` ZPP. Here, ZPP denotes the class of languages decidable by a random expected polynomial-time algorithm that makes no errors. Our result matches (up to low order terms) the known gap for approximating the size of the largest independent set. Previous O(N ffi ) gaps for approximating the chromatic number (such as those by Lund and Yannakakis, and by Furer) did not match the gap for independent set, and do not extend...

The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, a connection is shown between approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph and multi-prover interactive proofs. Second, an efficient multi-prover interactive proof for NP languages is constructed, where the verifier uses very few random bits and communication bits. Last, the connection between cliques and efficient multiprover interactive proofs, is shown to yield hardness results on the complexity of approximating the size of the largest clique in a graph. Of independent interest is our proof of correctness for the multilinearity test of functions. 1

An approximation algorithm for the maximum independent set problem is given, improving the best performance guarantee known to O(n/(log n)²). We also obtain the same performance guarantee for graph coloring. The results can be combined into a surprisingly strong simultaneous performance guarantee for the clique and coloring problems. The framework

Contents 1 The Magical Mystery Tour 7 1.1 Some Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.1.1 Hardness results for linear transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.1.2 Error Correcting Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.1.3 De-randomizing Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.2 Magical Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 A Super Concentrator with O(n) edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.2 Error Correcting Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.3 De-randomizing Random Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We indicate strong non-approximability factors for central problems: N^{1/4} for Max Clique; N^{1/10} for Chromatic Number; and 66/65 for Max 3SAT. Underlying the Max Clique result is a proof system in...

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This chapter is a self-contained survey of recent results about the hardness of approximating NP-hard optimization problems.