NP-complete Problem: Prof. S M Lee Department of Computer Science

NP-complete Problem
Prof. S M Lee
Department of Computer Science
Decision Problems
To keep things simple, we will mainly concern ourselves with
decision problems. These problems only require a single bit output:
``yes'' and ``no''.
How would you solve the following decision problems?
Is this directed graph acyclic?
Is there a spanning tree of this undirected graph with total
weight less than w?
Does this bipartite graph have a perfect (all nodes matched)
matching?
Does the pattern p appear as a substring in text t?
P
P is the set of decision problems that can be solved in worst-case
polynomial time:
If the input is of size n, the running time must be O(nk).
Note that k can depend on the problem class, but not the
particular instance.
All the decision problems mentioned above are in P.
Nice Puzzle
The class NP (meaning non-deterministic polynomial time) is the
set of problems that might appear in a puzzle magazine: ``Nice
puzzle.''
What makes these problems special is that they might be hard to
solve, but a short answer can always be printed in the back, and it
is easy to see that the answer is
correct once you see it.
Example... Does matrix A have an LU decomposition?
No guarantee if answer is ``no''.
NP
Technically speaking:
A problem is in NP if it has a short accepting certificate.
An accepting certificate is something that we can use to
quickly show that the answer is ``yes'' (if it is yes).
Quickly means in polynomial time.
Short means polynomial size.
This means that all problems in P are in NP (since we don't even
need a certificate to quickly show the answer is ``yes'').
But other problems in NP may not be in P. Given an integer x, is
it composite? How do we know this is in NP?
Good Guessing
Another way of thinking of NP is it is the set of problems that can
solved efficiently by a really good guesser.
The guesser essentially picks the accepting certificate out of the air
(Non-deterministic Polynomial time). It can then convince itself that
it is correct using a polynomial
time algorithm. (Like a right-brain, left-brain sort of thing.)
Clearly this isn't a practically useful characterization: how could
we build such a machine?
Exponential Upperbound
Another useful property of the class NP is that all NP problems can
be solved in exponential time (EXP).
This is because we can always list out all short certificates in
exponential time and check all O(2nk) of them.
Thus, P is in NP, and NP is in EXP. Although we know that P is
not equal to EXP, it is possible that NP = P, or EXP, or neither.
Frustrating!
NP-hardness
As we will see, some problems are at least as hard to solve as any
problem in NP. We call such problems NP-hard.
How might we argue that problem X is at least as hard (to within
a polynomial factor) as problem Y?
If X is at least as hard as Y, how would we expect an algorithm
that is able to solve X to behave?
HARD AND EASY PROBLEMS

(a very informal introduction)
Good starting points for precise definitions and formal introduction are Papadimitriou:
Computational Complexity, Adison-Wesley, 1994
Garey and Johnson: Computers and Intractability, Freeman 1979
Schrijver: Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, Wiley, 1986, (Chapter 2)
P: Collection Z of problems is in P (polynomial-time solvable) if

there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that solves any problem in Z, i.e, the
algorithm that requires at most
f(s)
basic steps where s=size of the input and f is a polynomial.
NP: Collection Z of decision problems is in NP (nondeterministic polynomialtime solvable) if there exists a polynomial time algorithm to check the
correctness of the YES answer.
co-NP: replace YES by NO in the above definition.
co-NP
NP
P
One of the central (and widely and intensively studied 30 years) problems of
(theoretical) computer science is to prove that
(a) PNP
(b) NP co-NP.
All evidence indicates that these conjectures are true.

Disproving any of these two conjectures would not only be considered truly
spectacular, but would also come as a tremendous surprise (with a variety of farreaching counterintuitive consequences).
NP-complete: Collection Z of problems is NP-complete if (a) it is NP and (b) if
polynomial-time algorithm existed for solving problems in Z, then P=NP.
Theorem. (Karp-Papadimitriou, 80)

If collection Z of membership problems is NP-complete, then either
(1) NP=co-NP
or
(2) CLDs for Z cannot be described (in terms of giving a finite number of
classes/rules for defining halfspaces from CLD).
Precise definitions of what form of description is ruled out (unless NP=co-NP) by the theorem
can be found in
Karp and Papadimitriou: On linear characterization of combinatorial
optimization problems, SIAM Journal on Computing 11(1982), 620-632.
Also, Chapter 18 of Schrijvers Theory of Linear and Integer Programming (Wiley, 1986) has a
discussion of the result.
(The result is often stated in terms of the class of all possible rational polyhedra. However,
focusing on any NP-complete class is equivalent to studying the general class.)
Membership Problem for S

INPUT: y Rd
Is y S ?
Linear Optimization Problem for S

INPUT: w Rd
Find max { w s | s S }.
Theorem. (Groetschel, Lovasz, Schrijver 88)

The complexity class of any collection ZM of membership problems
is equal to the complexity class of the collection ZLO of the corresponding linear
optimization problems.
The details can be found in
Groetschel, Lovasz,Schrijver: Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization,
Springer-Verlag, 1998,
Also, see Chapter 14 of Schrijvers Theory of Linear and Integer Programming (Wiley, 1986)
for the overview of the result and its widespread implications.
EXAMPLE: BINARY CHOICE

D={{a b} | {a,b}C}
(note that d=|D|=n(n-1)/2)
Binary Choice Polytope PBC(n) = the convex hull of { xi | i=1,,n! }

Define Z={PBC(n), n =1,2,3, }
Theorem.
The collection ZLO of linear optimization problems on polytopes from Z is NPcomplete.
Thus, by GLS Theorem, ZM is NP-complete.
Thus, by KP Theorem,
There is no hope for finding CLD for Binary Choice Polytope.
EXAMPLE: MULTIPLE CHOICE

D={{a b: b B\{a}} | (a,B) such that aBC }
(note that d = |D| = n2n-1 )
Multiple Choice Polytope PMC(n) = the convex hull of { xi | i=1,,n!}
Define Z={PMC(n), n =1,2,3, }
Theorem.
The collection ZLO of linear optimization problems on polytopes from Z is in P.
Thus, by GLS Theorem, ZM is in P.
Thus, KP Theorem is not restrictive in this case.
(In fact, CLD given by Falmagne 79)
Linear Optimization on PMC(n) is easy.

INPUT: w Rd
Find max { f(s)= w s | s PMC(n) }.
max attained at some extreme point of PMC(n), i.e., at some xi
f ( Ri ) w xi
(that represents Ri).
( a ,B )
aB C
w ( a ,B )
( a ,B )
aB C
{a Ri b | bB \{a }}
T ({a b | b B \ {a}})
( a ,B ) i
Dynamic Programming:
For every a C do Value({a}): = w(a,{a})
For i=2n, do
For every B such that |B|=i, do
Find
Value ( B ) : max Value ( B \ {b}) w( b ,B ')

bB
B ' B ,bB '
Value(C ) is the solution to the linear optimization problem.

Inside loop requires at most Ki2i steps for some const. K.
There are <2n repetitions of the inside loop.
Thus the algorithm needs at most K(n2n)2 steps.
In terms of the input size d=n2n-1 :
The algorithm requires at most Ld2 steps for some const. L. (These
are very crude estimates, but we dont
have to be precise for our purpose here)
Linear Optimization on P (n) can be done in polynomial time
The prob.distr. over the set of all n! rankings explains the data
Given the set of queries D:
If the number of queries d < f(n) for some polynomial f,
finding CLD for the corresponding polytope is likely to be hopeless.
If the number of queries d > Kan, there is hope.
Exercise: Show that the linear optimization problem corresponding to the
membership problem for the Approval Voting Polytope is easy (i.e., can be
solved in polynomial time).
Hint: What is the input size?
Hint: Devise a dynamic programming algorithm for finding a
max. weight maximal chain.
Note that the rankings played no conceptual role.

General Model
Claim:
Given any data set, there is a probability distribution over the finite set of
alternatives (states of nature) that explains the data.
S1 , S2 ,, S s
p1 , p2 ,, ps
pi 0, pi 1
i 1
D {Q1 , Q2 ,, Qd }
The finite set of queries/questions:
1 if Q true in Sm
Tm (Q ) : P(Q | pm 1)
n!
0 otherwise
P (Q ) pi Ti (Q )
Then, for any Q, the probability that Q holds is
Get polytopal representation of the model.
How to choose D?
i 1
Possible States of Nature

S1,,Ss
Linear
Optimization
Queries
(d of them)
Polytope
(in [0,1]d)
Model
Characterization
NP-Complete Problems

NP-complete Problem: Prof. S M Lee Department of Computer Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NP-complete Problem: Prof. S M Lee Department of Computer Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NP-complete Problem: Prof. S M Lee Department of Computer Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NP-complete Problem

HARD AND EASY PROBLEMS

P: Collection Z of problems is in P (polynomial-time solvable) if

All evidence indicates that these conjectures are true.

Theorem. (Karp-Papadimitriou, 80)

Membership Problem for S

Linear Optimization Problem for S

Theorem. (Groetschel, Lovasz, Schrijver 88)

EXAMPLE: BINARY CHOICE

(note that d=|D|=n(n-1)/2)

Binary Choice Polytope PBC(n) = the convex hull of { xi | i=1,,n! }

EXAMPLE: MULTIPLE CHOICE

(In fact, CLD given by Falmagne 79)

Linear Optimization on PMC(n) is easy.

(that represents Ri).

Value ( B ) : max Value ( B \ {b}) w( b ,B ')

Value(C ) is the solution to the linear optimization problem.

Linear Optimization on P (n) can be done in polynomial time

Note that the rankings played no conceptual role.

Possible States of Nature

You might also like