MAX-3SAT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MAX-3SAT is a problem in the computational complexity subfield of computer science. It generalises the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) which is a decision problem considered in complexity theory. It is defined as:
Given a 3-CNF formula Φ (i.e. with at most 3 variables per clause), Find an assignment that satisfies the largest number of clauses.
MAX-3SAT is a canonical complete problem for the complexity class MAXSNP (shown complete in Papadimitriou pg. 314).
Contents |
[edit] Approximability
An exact solution of MAX-3SAT is NP-hard. Therefore, a polynomial-time solution can only be achieved if P = NP. An approximation within a factor of 2 can be achieved with this simple algorithm, however:
- Output the solution in which most clauses are satisfied, when either all variables = TRUE or all variables = FALSE.
- Every clause is satisfied by one of the two solutions, therefore one solution satisfies at least half of the clauses.
The Karloff-Zwick algorithm runs in polynomial-time and satisfies ≥ 7/8 of the clauses.
[edit] Theorem 1 (Inapproximability)
The PCP theorem implies that there exists an ε > 0 such that (1-ε)-approximation of MAX-3SAT is NP-hard.
Proof:
Any NP-complete problem L ∈ PCP(O(log (n)), O(1)) by the PCP theorem. For x ∈ L, a 3-CNF formula Ψx is constructed so that
- x ∈ L ⇒ Ψx is satisfiable
- x ∉ L ⇒ no more than (1-ε)m clauses of Ψx are satisfiable.
The Verifier V reads all required bits at once i.e. makes non-adaptive queries. This is valid because the number of queries remains constant.
- Let q be the number of queries.
- Enumerating all random strings Ri ∈ V, we obtain poly(x) strings since the length of each string r(x) = O(log |x|).
- For each Ri
- V chooses q positions i1,...,iq and a Boolean function fR: {0,1}q and accepts if and only if fR(π(i1,...,iq)). Here π refers to the proof obtained from the Oracle.
Next we try to find a Boolean formula to simulate this. We introduce Boolean variables x1,...,xl, where l is the length of the proof. To demonstrate that the Verifier runs in Probabilistic polynomial-time, we need a correspondence between the number of satisfiable clauses and the probability the Verifier accepts.
- For every R, add clauses representing fR(xi1,...,xiq) using 2q SAT clauses. Clauses of length q are converted to length 3 by adding new (auxiliary) variables e.g. x2 ∨ x10 ∨ x11 ∨ x12 = ( x2 ∨ x10 ∨ yR) ∧ ( ∨ x11 ∨ x12). This requires a maximum of q2q 3-SAT clauses.
- If z ∈ L then
- there is a proof π such that Vπ (z) accepts for every Ri.
- All clauses are satisfied if xi = π(i) and the auxiliary variables are added correctly.
- If input z ∉ L then
- For every assignment to x1,...,xl and yR's, the corresponding proof π(i) = xi causes the Verifier to reject for half of all R ∈ {0,1}r(|z|).
- For each R, one clause representing fR fails.
- Therefore a fraction of clauses fails.
- For every assignment to x1,...,xl and yR's, the corresponding proof π(i) = xi causes the Verifier to reject for half of all R ∈ {0,1}r(|z|).
It can be concluded that if this holds for every NP-complete problem then the PCP theorem must be true.
[edit] Related problems
MAX-3SAT(13) is a restricted version of MAX-3SAT where every variable occurs in at most 13 clauses.
[edit] Theorem 2
Håstad demonstrates a tighter result than Theorem 1 i.e. the best known value for ε.
He constructs a PCP Verifier for 3-SAT that reads only 3 bits from the Proof.
For every ε > 0, there is a PCP-verifier M for 3-SAT that reads a random string r of length O(log(n)) and computes query positions ir, jr, kr in the proof π and a bit br. It accepts if and only if
π(ir) ⊕ π(jr) ⊕ π(kr) ⊕ = br.
The Verifier has completeness (1-ε) and soundness 1/2 + ε (refer to PCP (complexity)). The Verifier satisfies
If the first of these two equations were equated to "=1" as usual, one could find a proof π by solving a system of linear equations (see MAX-3LIN-EQN) implying P = NP.
- If z ∈ L, a fraction ≥ (1- ε) of clauses are satisfied.
- If z ∉ L, then for a (1/2- ε) fraction of R, 1/4 clauses are contradicted.
This is enough to prove the hardness of approximation ratio