Every permutation CSP of arity 3 is approximation resistant

Proceedings of the Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 62-73

  Charikar, Moses ^a   Guruswami, Venkatesan ^b,c   Manokaran, Rajsekar ^a  

^a Princeton University   (United States)

^b University of Washington   (United States)

^c INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY   (United States)

Author keywords

Approximation resistance; Betweenness; Hardness of approximation; Permutation constraint satisfaction problems

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION RESISTANCE; BETWEENNESS; CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS; FINITE DOMAINS; GLOBAL ORDERING; HARDNESS OF APPROXIMATION; IDENTITY PERMUTATION; IS APPROXIMATION; NATURAL EXTENSION; PERMUTATION CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS; SUBGRAPHS;

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER OPERATING PROCEDURES; HARDNESS; STEELMAKING;

APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS;

EID: 70350646990     PISSN: 10930159     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/CCC.2009.29     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. P. Austrin. Towards sharp inapproximability for any 2-csp. In FOCS, pages 307-317. IEEE Computer Society, 2007.
2. M. Charikar, K. Makarychev, and Y. Makarychev. On the advantage over random for maximum acyclic subgraph. In FOCS, pages 625-633. IEEE Computer Society, 2007.
3. B. Chor and M. Sudan. A geometric approach to betweenness. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 11(4): 511-523, Nov. 1998.
4. L. Engebretsen and V. Guruswami. Is constraint satisfaction over two variables always easy? Random Struct. Algorithms, 25(2): 150-178, 2004.
5. M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. Journal of the ACM, 42(6): 1115-1145, 1995.
6. V. Guruswami, R. Manokaran, and P. Raghavendra. Beating the random ordering is hard: Inapproximability of maximum acyclic subgraph. In FOCS, pages 573-582. IEEE Computer Society, 2008.
7. G. Hast. Beating a Random Assignment. PhD thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
8. J. Hastad. Every 2-csp allows nontrivial approximation. In H. N. Gabow and R. Fagin, editors, STOC, pages 740-746. ACM, 2005.
9. J. Hastad. On the approximation resistance of a random predicate. In M. Charikar, K. Jansen, O. Reingold, and J. D. P. Rolim, editors, APPROX-RANDOM, volume 4627 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 149-163. Springer, 2007.
10. S. Khot. On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games. In IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, page 25, 2002. (Pubitemid 34691889)
11. S. Khot, G. Kindler, E. Mossel, and R. O'Donnell. Optimal inapproximability results for MAX-CUT and other 2-variable csps? SIAM J. Comput., 37(1): 319-357, 2007.
12. S. Khot and O. Regev. Vertex cover might be hard to approximate to within 2-epsilon. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 74(3): 335-349, 2008.
13. T. K̈orner. Fourier Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
14. E. Mossel, R. O'Donnell, and K. Oleszkiewicz. Noise stability of functions with low influences: invariance and optimality. In FOCS, pages 21-30. IEEE Computer Society, 2005.
15. P. Raghavendra. Optimal algorithms and inapproximability results for every csp? In STOC '08: Proceedings of the 40th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2008.
16. U. Zwick. Approximation algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems involving at most three variables per constraint. In SODA, pages 201-210, 1998.