On the Efficient Approximability of “HARD” Problems: A Survey
By a HARD problem, we mean a problem that is PSPACE-, DEXPTIME-, NEXPTIME-hard, etc. Many basic algorithmically-solvable problems, for quantified formulas, for sequential circuits, for combinatorial games, and for problems when instances are specified hierarchically or periodically are known to be HARD. Analogous to what has occurred for NP-complete problems, it often makes sense to talk about the complexities of the approxi-mation problems associated with these HARD problems. Here, we survey our results on the complexities of such approximation problems, emphasizing our results for hierarchically-and periodically-specified problems. These results include the first collection of PTASs, for natural PSPACE-complete, DEXPTIME-complete, and NEXPTIME-complete problems in the literature. In contrast, these results also include a number of new results showing that related approximation problems are HARD.
“Local” approximation-preserving reductions between problems can be extended to efficient approximation-preserving reductions between these problems, when instances are hierarchically- or periodically-specified. Such reductions can be used both to obtain efficient approximation algorithms and to prove approximation problems are HARD.
Hierarchically- and periodically-specified problems are often HARD. But, they also are often efficiently approximable.
The efficient decomposability of problems and problem instances and the compatibility of such decompositions with the structure of hierarchical- or periodic-specifications play central roles in the development of efficient approximation algorithms, for the problems when hierarchically- or periodically-specified.
KeywordsSuccinct Specifications Computational Complexity Efficient and Non-Efficient Approximability.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- J.L. Bentley, T. Ottman and P. Widmayer, “The complexity of manipulating hierarchically defined sets of rectangles”, Advances in Computing Research, Vol. 1, F.P. Preparata, ed., JAI Press Inc., pp. 127–158, 1983.Google Scholar
- E. Cohen and N. Megiddo, “Recognizing Properties of Periodic graphs”, Applied Geometry and Discrete Mathematics, The Victor Klee Festschrift, Vol. 4, P. Gritzmann and B. Strumfels, eds., ACM, New York, pp. 135–146, 1991.Google Scholar
- A. Condon, J. Feigenbaum, C. Lund and P. Shor, “Probabilistically Checkable Debate Systems and Approximation Algorithms for PSPACE-Hard Functions,” in Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 1995, No. 4. http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/publications/cjtcs/articles/1995/4/contents.html.
- A Condon, “Approximate Solutions to Problems in PSPACE,” SIGACT News: Introduction to Complexity Theory Column 9, Guest Column, July, 1995.Google Scholar
- T. Feder and M.Y. Vardi, “Monotone Monadic SNP and Constraint Satisfaction,” Proc. 25th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 612–622, 1993.Google Scholar
- H. B. Hunt III, M. V. Marathe, and R.E. Stearns, “Generalized CNF satisfiability problems and non-efficient approximability”, Proc. 9th Annual IEEE Conf. on Structure in Complexity Theory, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 356–366, June 1994.Google Scholar
- H. B. Hunt III, M. V. Marathe, and R.E. Stearns, “Local reductions, generalized satisfiability problems, complexity, and Efficient Approximability” in preparation, March 1999.Google Scholar
- K. Iwano and K. Steiglitz, “Testing for Cycles in Infinite Graphs with Periodic Structure,” Proc. 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, (STOC), pp. 46–53, 1987.Google Scholar
- M. Kodialam and J.B. Orlin, “Recognizing Strong Connectivity in Periodic graphs and its relation to integer programming,” Proc. 2nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pp. 131–135, 1991.Google Scholar
- K. R. Kosaraju and G.F. Sullivan, “Detecting Cycles in Dynamic Graphs in Polynomial Time,” Proc. 27th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 398–406, 1988.Google Scholar
- M.V. Marathe, H.B. Hunt III, R.E. Stearns, and V. Radhakrishnan, “Complexity of hierarchically and 1-dimensional periodically specified problems,” AMSDIMACS Volume Series on Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science: Workshop on Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Application, 35, pp. 225–259, Nov. 1996.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- M.V. Marathe, H.B. Hunt III, D.J. Rosenkrantz, and R.E. Stearns, “Theory of periodically specified problems I: complexity and approximability,” Proc. 13th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, Buffalo, NY, June 1998.Google Scholar
- M.V.Marathe, H.B.Hunt III, D.J.Rosenkrantz, and R.E.Stearns, “Theory of periodically specified problems II: Applications,” in preparation, March 1999.Google Scholar
- G.L. Nemhauser and L.A. Wolsey, Integer and Combinatorial Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, 1988.Google Scholar
- J.B. Orlin, “The Complexity of Dynamic/Periodic Languages and Optimization Problems,” Sloan W.P. No. 1679–86 July 1985, Working paper, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139. A Preliminary version of the paper appears in Proc. 13th ACM Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 218–227, 1978.Google Scholar
- J.B. Orlin, “Some problems on dynamic/periodic graphs,” Progress in Combinatorial Optimization, W.R. Pulleybank, ed., Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1984.Google Scholar
- T.J. Schaefer, “The complexity of satisfiability problems,” Proc. 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, (STOC), pp. 216–226, 1978.Google Scholar
- L.J. Stockmeyer and A.R. Meyer, “Word problems requiring exponential time,” Proc. 5th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, (STOC), Texas, 1973, pages 1–9.Google Scholar
- E. Wanke, “Paths and cycles in finite periodic graphs,” Proc. 20th Symposium. on Math. Foundations of Computer Science(MFCS), Springer-Verlag LNCS 711, pp. 751–760, 1993.Google Scholar