Chapter 8. NP and Computational Intractability. Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved.

Similar documents
! Greed. O(n log n) interval scheduling. ! Divide-and-conquer. O(n log n) FFT. ! Dynamic programming. O(n 2 ) edit distance.

! Greed. O(n log n) interval scheduling. ! Divide-and-conquer. O(n log n) FFT. ! Dynamic programming. O(n 2 ) edit distance.

8.1 Polynomial-Time Reductions

8.1 Polynomial-Time Reductions

CS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis

3/7/2018. CS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis. 8.1 Polynomial-Time Reductions. Chapter 8. NP and Computational Intractability

NP and computational intractability. Kleinberg and Tardos, chapter 8

Reductions. Linear Time Reductions. Desiderata. Reduction. Desiderata. Classify problems according to their computational requirements.

Chapter 10 Part 1: Reduction

10. EXTENDING TRACTABILITY

Copyright 2000, Kevin Wayne 1

10. EXTENDING TRACTABILITY

Reductions. designing algorithms establishing lower bounds establishing intractability classifying problems. Bird s-eye view

Unit 8: Coping with NP-Completeness. Complexity classes Reducibility and NP-completeness proofs Coping with NP-complete problems. Y.-W.

NP-Hardness. We start by defining types of problem, and then move on to defining the polynomial-time reductions.

8 NP-complete problem Hard problems: demo

Example of a Demonstration that a Problem is NP-Complete by reduction from CNF-SAT

Reductions and Satisfiability

NP-Completeness. Algorithms

Algorithms. Algorithms 6.5 REDUCTIONS. introduction designing algorithms establishing lower bounds classifying problems intractability

1 Definition of Reduction

arxiv: v2 [cs.cc] 29 Mar 2010

NP Completeness. Andreas Klappenecker [partially based on slides by Jennifer Welch]

P and NP (Millenium problem)

CS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis

NP-complete Reductions

NP versus PSPACE. Frank Vega. To cite this version: HAL Id: hal

CMPSCI611: The SUBSET-SUM Problem Lecture 18

Exercises Computational Complexity

P and NP CISC5835, Algorithms for Big Data CIS, Fordham Univ. Instructor: X. Zhang

NP-Completeness of 3SAT, 1-IN-3SAT and MAX 2SAT

P and NP CISC4080, Computer Algorithms CIS, Fordham Univ. Instructor: X. Zhang

Computational problems. Lecture 2: Combinatorial search and optimisation problems. Computational problems. Examples. Example

P -vs- NP. NP Problems. P = polynomial time. NP = non-deterministic polynomial time

W4231: Analysis of Algorithms

Best known solution time is Ω(V!) Check every permutation of vertices to see if there is a graph edge between adjacent vertices

NP-Complete Reductions 2

Some Hardness Proofs

Where Can We Draw The Line?

9.1 Cook-Levin Theorem

Computability Theory

The Satisfiability Problem [HMU06,Chp.10b] Satisfiability (SAT) Problem Cook s Theorem: An NP-Complete Problem Restricted SAT: CSAT, k-sat, 3SAT

Lecture 24: More Reductions (1997) Steven Skiena. skiena

COMP260 Spring 2014 Notes: February 4th

SAT-CNF Is N P-complete

/633 Introduction to Algorithms Lecturer: Michael Dinitz Topic: Approximation algorithms Date: 11/27/18

Complexity Classes and Polynomial-time Reductions

1 Introduction. 1. Prove the problem lies in the class NP. 2. Find an NP-complete problem that reduces to it.

W[1]-hardness. Dániel Marx 1. Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA SZTAKI) Budapest, Hungary

Chapter 8. NP-complete problems

6.006 Introduction to Algorithms. Lecture 25: Complexity Prof. Erik Demaine

CS521 \ Notes for the Final Exam

Homework 4 Solutions

W[1]-hardness. Dániel Marx. Recent Advances in Parameterized Complexity Tel Aviv, Israel, December 3, 2017

2SAT Andreas Klappenecker

Copyright 2000, Kevin Wayne 1

Propositional Calculus: Boolean Algebra and Simplification. CS 270: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science Jeremy Johnson

CS154, Lecture 18: PCPs, Hardness of Approximation, Approximation-Preserving Reductions, Interactive Proofs, Zero-Knowledge, Cold Fusion, Peace in

ALGORITHMS EXAMINATION Department of Computer Science New York University December 17, 2007

Mixed Integer Linear Programming

11/22/2016. Chapter 9 Graph Algorithms. Introduction. Definitions. Definitions. Definitions. Definitions

Chapter 9 Graph Algorithms

Reference Sheet for CO142.2 Discrete Mathematics II

Chapter 4. Greedy Algorithms. Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved.

Conflict-free Covering

Lecture 2: NP-Completeness

Algorithms. Algorithms ALGORITHM DESIGN

CS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis. Jeremiah Blocki Purdue University Spring 2018

Questions? You are given the complete graph of Facebook. What questions would you ask? (What questions could we hope to answer?)

1. Suppose you are given a magic black box that somehow answers the following decision problem in polynomial time:

CSE101: Design and Analysis of Algorithms. Ragesh Jaiswal, CSE, UCSD

A New Reduction from 3-SAT to Graph K- Colorability for Frequency Assignment Problem

Introduction to Parameterized Complexity

(p 300) Theorem 7.27 SAT is in P iff P=NP

Chapter 9 Graph Algorithms

Lecture 20: Satisfiability Steven Skiena. Department of Computer Science State University of New York Stony Brook, NY

Parameterized Reductions

Introduction to Algorithms / Algorithms I Lecturer: Michael Dinitz Topic: Approximation algorithms Date: 11/18/14

CS483 Design and Analysis of Algorithms

Lecture 7: Counting classes

CSCE750 Analysis of Algorithms Fall 2017 NP-Complete Problems

CS 512, Spring 2017: Take-Home End-of-Term Examination

Chapter 4. Greedy Algorithms. Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved.

PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC (2)

Chapter 9 Graph Algorithms

Chapter 4. Greedy Algorithms. Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved.

11. APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS

CS 151 Complexity Theory Spring Final Solutions. L i NL i NC 2i P.

Lecture 14: Lower Bounds for Tree Resolution

Boolean Functions (Formulas) and Propositional Logic

1. [5 points each] True or False. If the question is currently open, write O or Open.

CS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis. Jeremiah Blocki Purdue University Spring 2018

Final Exam May 8, 2018

Logic and Computation

Lecture 13. Reading: Weiss, Ch. 9, Ch 8 CSE 100, UCSD: LEC 13. Page 1 of 29

Chapter 8. NP-complete problems

The Resolution Algorithm

To prove something about all Boolean expressions, we will need the following induction principle: Axiom 7.1 (Induction over Boolean expressions):

Implementation of a Sudoku Solver Using Reduction to SAT

Online Appendix: A Stackelberg Game Model for Botnet Data Exfiltration

Transcription:

Chapter 8 NP and Computational Intractability Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved. 1

Algorithm Design Patterns and Anti-Patterns Algorithm design patterns. Ex. Greedy. O(n log n) interval scheduling. Divide-and-conquer. O(n log n) FFT. Dynamic programming. O(n 2 ) edit distance. Duality. O(n 3 ) bipartite matching. Reductions. Local search. Randomization. Algorithm design anti-patterns. NP-completeness. O(n k ) algorithm unlikely. PSPACE-completeness. O(n k ) certification algorithm unlikely. Undecidability. No algorithm possible. 2

8.1 Polynomial-Time Reductions

Classify Problems According to Computational Requirements Q. Which problems will we be able to solve in practice? A working definition. [von Neumann 1953, Godel 1956, Cobham 1964, Edmonds 1965, Rabin 1966] Those with polynomial-time algorithms. Yes Shortest path Matching Min cut 2-SAT Planar 4-color Bipartite vertex cover Probably no Longest path 3D-matching Max cut 3-SAT Planar 3-color Vertex cover Primality testing Factoring 4

Classify Problems Desiderata. Classify problems according to those that can be solved in polynomial-time and those that cannot. Provably requires exponential-time. Given a Turing machine, does it halt in at most k steps? Given a board position in an n-by-n generalization of chess, can black guarantee a win? Frustrating news. Huge number of fundamental problems have defied classification for decades. This chapter. Show that these fundamental problems are "computationally equivalent" and appear to be different manifestations of one really hard problem. 5

Polynomial-Time Reduction Desiderata'. Suppose we could solve X in polynomial-time. What else could we solve in polynomial time? Reduction. Problem X polynomial reduces to problem Y if arbitrary instances of problem X can be solved using: don't confuse with reduces from Polynomial number of standard computational steps, plus Polynomial number of calls to oracle that solves problem Y. Notation. X P Y. computational model supplemented by special piece of hardware that solves instances of Y in a single step Remarks. We pay for time to write down instances sent to black box instances of Y must be of polynomial size. Note: Cook reducibility. in contrast to Karp reductions 6

Polynomial-Time Reduction Purpose. Classify problems according to relative difficulty. Design algorithms. If X P Y and Y can be solved in polynomial-time, then X can also be solved in polynomial time. Establish intractability. If X P Y and X cannot be solved in polynomial-time, then Y cannot be solved in polynomial time. Establish equivalence. If X P Y and Y P X, we use notation X P Y. up to cost of reduction 7

Reduction By Simple Equivalence Basic reduction strategies. Reduction by simple equivalence. Reduction from special case to general case. Reduction by encoding with gadgets.

Independent Set INDEPENDENT SET: Given a graph G = (V, E) and an integer k, is there a subset of vertices S V such that S k, and for each edge at most one of its endpoints is in S? Ex. Is there an independent set of size 6? Yes. Ex. Is there an independent set of size 7? No. independent set 9

Vertex Cover VERTEX COVER: Given a graph G = (V, E) and an integer k, is there a subset of vertices S V such that S k, and for each edge, at least one of its endpoints is in S? Ex. Is there a vertex cover of size 4? Yes. Ex. Is there a vertex cover of size 3? No. vertex cover 10

Vertex Cover and Independent Set Claim. VERTEX-COVER P INDEPENDENT-SET. Pf. We show S is an independent set iff V S is a vertex cover. independent set vertex cover 11

Vertex Cover and Independent Set Claim. VERTEX-COVER P INDEPENDENT-SET. Pf. We show S is an independent set iff V S is a vertex cover. Let S be any independent set. Consider an arbitrary edge (u, v). S independent u S or v S u V S or v V S. Thus, V S covers (u, v). Let V S be any vertex cover. Consider two nodes u S and v S. Observe that (u, v) E since V S is a vertex cover. Thus, no two nodes in S are joined by an edge S independent set. 12

Reduction from Special Case to General Case Basic reduction strategies. Reduction by simple equivalence. Reduction from special case to general case. Reduction by encoding with gadgets.

Set Cover SET COVER: Given a set U of elements, a collection S 1, S 2,..., S m of subsets of U, and an integer k, does there exist a collection of k of these sets whose union is equal to U? Sample application. m available pieces of software. Set U of n capabilities that we would like our system to have. The ith piece of software provides the set S i U of capabilities. Goal: achieve all n capabilities using fewest pieces of software. Ex: U = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 } k = 2 S 1 = {3, 7} S 4 = {2, 4} S 2 = {3, 4, 5, 6} S 5 = {5} S 3 = {1} S 6 = {1, 2, 6, 7} 14

Vertex Cover Reduces to Set Cover Claim. VERTEX-COVER P SET-COVER. Pf. Given a VERTEX-COVER instance G = (V, E), k, we construct a set cover instance whose size equals the size of the vertex cover instance. Construction. Create SET-COVER instance: k = k, U = E, S v = {e E : e incident to v } Set-cover of size k iff vertex cover of size k. VERTEX COVER a b SET COVER f e 7 e 1 e 2 e 3 e 6 e 4 e 5 c U = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 } k = 2 S a = {3, 7} S b = {2, 4} S c = {3, 4, 5, 6} S d = {5} S e = {1} S f = {1, 2, 6, 7} k = 2 e d 15

Polynomial-Time Reduction Basic strategies. Reduction by simple equivalence. Reduction from special case to general case. Reduction by encoding with gadgets. 16

8.2 Reductions via "Gadgets" Basic reduction strategies. Reduction by simple equivalence. Reduction from special case to general case. Reduction via "gadgets."

Satisfiability Literal: A Boolean variable or its negation. x i or x i Clause: A disjunction of literals. C j = x 1 " x 2 " x 3 Conjunctive normal form: A propositional formula Φ that is the conjunction of clauses. " = C 1 # C 2 # C 3 # C 4 SAT: Given CNF formula Φ, does it have a satisfying truth assignment? 3-SAT: SAT where each clause contains exactly 3 literals. each corresponds to a different variable Ex: ( x 1 " x 2 " x 3 ) # ( x 1 " x 2 " x 3 ) # ( x 2 " x 3 ) # ( x 1 " x 2 " x 3 ) Yes: x 1 = true, x 2 = true x 3 = false. 18

3 Satisfiability Reduces to Independent Set Claim. 3-SAT P INDEPENDENT-SET. Pf. Given an instance Φ of 3-SAT, we construct an instance (G, k) of INDEPENDENT-SET that has an independent set of size k iff Φ is satisfiable. Construction. G contains 3 vertices for each clause, one for each literal. Connect 3 literals in a clause in a triangle. Connect literal to each of its negations. x 1 x 2 x 1 G k = 3 x 2 x 3 x x 1 x 2 x 3 4 " = ( x 1 # x 2 # x 3 ) $ ( x 1 # x 2 # x 3 ) $ ( x 1 # x 2 # x 4 ) 19

3 Satisfiability Reduces to Independent Set Claim. G contains independent set of size k = Φ iff Φ is satisfiable. Pf. Let S be independent set of size k. S must contain exactly one vertex in each triangle. Set these literals to true. and any other variables in a consistent way Truth assignment is consistent and all clauses are satisfied. Pf Given satisfying assignment, select one true literal from each triangle. This is an independent set of size k. x 1 x 2 x 1 G x 2 x 3 x x 1 x 2 x 3 4 k = 3 " = ( x 1 # x 2 # x 3 ) $ ( x 1 # x 2 # x 3 ) $ ( x 1 # x 2 # x 4 ) 20

Review Basic reduction strategies. Simple equivalence: INDEPENDENT-SET P VERTEX-COVER. Special case to general case: VERTEX-COVER P SET-COVER. Encoding with gadgets: 3-SAT P INDEPENDENT-SET. Transitivity. If X P Y and Y P Z, then X P Z. Pf idea. Compose the two algorithms. Ex: 3-SAT P INDEPENDENT-SET P VERTEX-COVER P SET-COVER. 21

Self-Reducibility Decision problem. Does there exist a vertex cover of size k? Search problem. Find vertex cover of minimum cardinality. Self-reducibility. Search problem P decision version. Applies to all (NP-complete) problems in this chapter. Justifies our focus on decision problems. Ex: to find min cardinality vertex cover. (Binary) search for cardinality k* of min vertex cover. Find a vertex v such that G { v } has a vertex cover of size k* - 1. any vertex in any min vertex cover will have this property Include v in the vertex cover. Recursively find a min vertex cover in G { v }. delete v and all incident edges 22