Bridging between 0/1 and linear programming via random walks

Under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis, an integer linear program with n Boolean-valued variables and m equations cannot be solved in cn time for any constant c < 2. If the domain of the variables is relaxed to [0,1], the associated linear program can of course be solved in polynomial time. In this work, we give a natural algorithmic bridging between these extremes of 0-1 and linear programming. Specifically, for any subset (finite union of intervals) E ⊂ [0,1] containing {0,1}, we give a random-walk based algorithm with runtime OE((2−measure(E))npoly(n,m)) that finds a solution in En to any n-variable linear program with m constraints that is feasible over {0,1}n. Note that as E expands from {0,1} to [0,1], the runtime improves smoothly from 2n to polynomial. Taking E = [0,1/k) ∪ (1−1/k,1] in our result yields as a corollary a randomized (2−2/k)npoly(n) time algorithm for k-SAT. While our approach has some high level resemblance to Sch'oning’s beautiful algorithm, our general algorithm is based on a more sophisticated random walk that incorporates several new ingredients, such as a multiplicative potential to measure progress, a judicious choice of starting distribution, and a time varying distribution for the evolution of the random walk that is itself computed via an LP at each step (a solution to which is guaranteed based on the minimax theorem). Plugging the LP algorithm into our earlier polymorphic framework yields fast exponential algorithms for any CSP (like k-SAT, 1-in-3-SAT, NAE k-SAT) that admit so-called “threshold partial polymorphisms.”

[1]  Michael E. Saks,et al.  An improved exponential-time algorithm for k-SAT , 2005, JACM.

[2]  Yoshio Okamoto,et al.  On Problems as Hard as CNF-SAT , 2011, 2012 IEEE 27th Conference on Computational Complexity.

[3]  Magnus Wahlström,et al.  Algorithms, measures and upper bounds for satisfiability and related problems , 2007 .

[4]  J. Håstad,et al.  (2 + epsilon)-Sat Is NP-Hard , 2017, 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  Shachar Lovett,et al.  0-1 Integer Linear Programming with a Linear Number of Constraints , 2014, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[6]  Magnus Wahlström,et al.  Which NP-Hard SAT and CSP Problems Admit Exponentially Improved Algorithms? , 2018, ArXiv.

[7]  Dominik Scheder,et al.  A full derandomization of schöning's k-SAT algorithm , 2010, STOC '11.

[8]  S. Ethier,et al.  Bounds on Gambler's Ruin Probabilities in Terms of Moments , 2002 .

[9]  J. Neumann Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele , 1928 .

[10]  Hubie Chen,et al.  A rendezvous of logic, complexity, and algebra , 2009, CSUR.

[11]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  An Algorithmic Blend of LPs and Ring Equations for Promise CSPs , 2018, SODA.

[12]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  Exact Algorithms for NP-Hard Problems: A Survey , 2001, Combinatorial Optimization.

[13]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  On the Complexity of k-SAT , 2001, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[14]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  (2+ε)-Sat Is NP-hard , 2014, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  Libor Barto,et al.  Polymorphisms, and How to Use Them , 2017, The Constraint Satisfaction Problem.

[16]  Gregory F. Lawler,et al.  Random Walk: A Modern Introduction , 2010 .

[17]  Uwe Schöning A Probabilistic Algorithm for k-SAT and Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1999, FOCS.

[18]  Feller William,et al.  An Introduction To Probability Theory And Its Applications , 1950 .

[19]  Gustav Nordh,et al.  Complexity of SAT Problems, Clone Theory and the Exponential Time Hypothesis , 2013, SODA.

[20]  J. G. Pierce,et al.  Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization , 2016 .

[21]  Peter Jeavons,et al.  Classifying the Complexity of Constraints Using Finite Algebras , 2005, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Timon Hertli,et al.  3-SAT Faster and Simpler - Unique-SAT Bounds for PPSZ Hold in General , 2011, 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.