You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘unique games’ tag.
[I am preparing a survey talk on Unique Games for a mathematics conference, and writing a survey paper for a booklet that will be distributed at the conference. My first instinct was to write a one-line paper that would simply refer to Subhash’s own excellent survey paper. Fearing that I might come off as lazy, I am instead writing my own paper. Here are some fragments. Comments are very welcome.]
1. Why is the Unique Games Conjecture Useful
In a previous post we stated the Unique Games Conjecture and made the following informal claim, here rephrased in abbreviated form:
To reduce Label Cover to a graph optimization problem like Max Cut, we map variables to collections of vertices and we map equations to collections of edges; then we show how to “encode” assignments to variables as 2-colorings of vertices which cut a fraction of edges, and finally (this is the hardest part of the argument) we show that given a 2-coloring that cuts a fraction of edges, then
- the given 2-coloring must be somewhat “close” to a 2-coloring coming from the encoding of an assignment and
- if we “decode” the given 2-coloring to an assignment to the variables, such an assignment satisfies a noticeable fraction of equations.
Starting our reduction from a Unique Game instead of a Label Cover problem, we only need to prove (1) above, and (2) more or less follows for free.
To verify this claim, we “axiomatize” the properties of a reduction that only achieves (1): we describe a reduction mapping a single variable to a graph, such that assignments to the variable are mapped to good cuts, and somewhat good cuts can be mapped back to assignments to the variable. The reader can then go back to our analysis of the Max Cut inapproximability proof in the previous post, and see that the properties below are sufficient to implement the reduction.
[I am preparing a survey talk on Unique Games for a mathematics conference, and writing a survey paper for a booklet that will be distributed at the conference. My first instinct was to write a one-line paper that would simply refer to Subhash’s own excellent survey paper. Fearing that I might come off as lazy, I am instead writing my own paper. Here is part 1 of some fragments. Comments are very welcome.]
Khot formulated the Unique Games Conjecture in a remarkably influential 2002 paper. In the subsequent eight years, the conjecture has motivated and enabled a large body of work on the computational complexity of approximating combinatorial optimization problems (the original context of the conjecture) and on the quality of approximation provided by “semidefinite programming” convex relaxations (a somewhat unexpected byproduct). Old and new questions in analysis, probability and geometry have played a key role in this development. Representative questions are:
- The central limit theorem explains what happens when we sum several independent random variables. What happens if, instead of summing them, we apply a low degree polynomial function to them?
- In Gaussian space, what is the body of a given volume with the smallest boundary?
- What are the balanced boolean function whose value is most likely to be the same when evaluated at two random correlated inputs?
- What conditions on the Fourier spectrum of a function of several variables imply that the function essentially depends on only few variables?
- With what distortion is it possible to embed various classes of finite metric spaces into L1?
Every year, at the AMS Joint Mathematics Meeting, there is a “Current Events” session, with four talks on new and exciting developments in math. Some of the talks are given by speakers who are knowledgeable about the development they are talking about, but unrelated to it.
I think of this as an excellent idea, and in fact I have sometimes fantasized about a theory seminar in which, as a rule, the speakers can only talk about other people’s work. (This has remained a fantasy because it would be too hard to recruit the speakers.) Indeed, at the Berkeley theory lunch, I used to encourage such talks, and I rarely spoke about my own work.
This is all to say that at the 2011 meeting one talk will be about Unique Games (according to my calculations, this means that computer science theory accounts for 1/4 of what’s new and exciting in math, yay!) and I have been invited to deliver it.
In the next three weeks, I am supposed to submit a picture (or a description of it, which will be realized by the AMS graphic designers) that illustrates the topic of my talk.
What picture would you use? I am thinking of a drawing of the Khot-Vishnoi graph or a drawing of the graph used to reduce unique games to Max Cut. A face picture of Subhash would also make sense, but I don’t think it’s what they are looking for. (See here for the graphics accompanying past talks.)
I was at a conference last week, at which I heard two pieces of mathematical gossip.
One was that Arora, Barak and Steurer have developed an algorithm that, given a Unique Games in which a fraction of constraints are satisfiable, finds an assignment satisfying a constant fraction of constraints in time . This is now officially announced in an earlier (public) paper by Arora, Impagliazzo, Matthews and Steurer, which presented a slower algorithm running in time where .
I suppose that the next targets are now the approximation problems for which the only known hardness is via unique games. Is there a subexponential algorithm achieving approximation for sparsest cut or approximation for Vertex Cover?
The other news is on the Polynomial Ruzsa-Freiman conjecture, one of the main open problems in additive combinatorics. Apologies in advance to readers if I get some details wrong. In the special case of , the conjecture is that if is any function such that
then there is a matrix and a vector such that
where the probability in the conclusion is independent of and is polynomial in . Various proofs were known achieving a bound of . The first proof, due to Samorodnitsky achieves, I believe, a bound of , while the results from this paper should imply a bound of where we use the notation .
At the conference, Ben Green announced a result of Schoen implying a subexponential bound of .
The proof begins with the standard step of applying a theorem of Ruzsa to find a subset such that , and on is a “Freiman 16-homomorphism,” meaning that for every 32 elements of such that
The choice of 16 is just whatever makes the rest of the proof work. The theorem of Ruzsa works for any arbitrarily large constant. Then we consider the set of all the elements that can written as with , and we define a function on by setting
which is a well-posed definition because is a Freiman 16-homomorphism. (It would have been sufficient if had been an 8-homomorphism.) Note that for every such that we have
Now the result of Schoen implies that if is a subset of of size , then there is a subspace of dimension such that is entirely contained in .
Previously, it was known how to get a subspace of dimension , by adapting a technique of Chang (see this survey paper).
Note that is now a linear map on , and that it agrees with on . (I cannot reconstruct how this last step follows, however — maybe that claim is that agrees with on a fraction of elements of ? ) It now just remains to extend, arbitrarily, to a linear map over the entire space.
In 2004 I wrote a survey on hardness of approximation as a book chapter for a book on approximation algorithm. I have just prepared a revised version for a new edition of the book.
While it would have been preferable to rethink the organization and start from scratch, because of time constraints I was only able to add sections on integrality gaps and on unique games, and to add references to more recent work (e.g. the combinatorial proof of the PCP theorem, the new 2-query PCPs, the tight results on minimizing congestion in directed networks, and so on).
If your (or your friend’s) important results are not cited, do let me know. The deadline to submit the chapter has long passed, but the threats from the editor haven’t yet escalated to the point where I feel that I have to submit it or else.