my-server
← Wiki

MAX-3SAT

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).

Approximability

The decision version of MAX-3SAT is NP-complete. 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. While this algorithm is randomized, it can be derandomized using, e.g., the techniques from to yield a deterministic (polynomial-time) algorithm with the same approximation guarantees.

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 by the PCP theorem. For x ∈ L, a 3-CNF formula Ψ<sub>x</sub> is constructed so that

  • x ∈ L ⇒ Ψ<sub>x</sub> is satisfiable
  • x ∉ L ⇒ no more than (1-ε)m clauses of Ψ<sub>x</sub> 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 R<sub>i</sub> ∈ V, we obtain poly(x) strings since the length of each string .
  • For each R<sub>i</sub>
  • V chooses q positions i<sub>1</sub>,...,i<sub>q</sub> and a Boolean function f<sub>R</sub>: {0,1}<sup>q</sup>->{0,1} and accepts if and only if f<sub>R</sub>(π(i<sub>1</sub>,...,i<sub>q</sub>)). 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 x<sub>1</sub>,...,x<sub>l</sub>, 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 f<sub>R</sub>(x<sub>i1</sub>,...,x<sub>iq</sub>) using 2<sup>q</sup> SAT clauses. Clauses of length q are converted to length 3 by adding new (auxiliary) variables e.g. x<sub>2</sub> ∨ x<sub>10</sub> ∨ x<sub>11</sub> ∨ x<sub>12</sub> = ( x<sub>2</sub> ∨ x<sub>10</sub> ∨ y<sub>R</sub>) ∧ ( <sub>R</sub> ∨ x<sub>11</sub> ∨ x<sub>12</sub>). This requires a maximum of q2<sup>q</sup> 3-SAT clauses.
  • If z ∈ L then
  • there is a proof π such that V<sup>π</sup> (z) accepts for every R<sub>i</sub>.
  • All clauses are satisfied if x<sub>i</sub> = π(i) and the auxiliary variables are added correctly.
  • If input z ∉ L then
  • For every assignment to x<sub>1</sub>,...,x<sub>l</sub> and y<sub>R</sub>'s, the corresponding proof π(i) = x<sub>i</sub> causes the Verifier to reject for half of all R ∈ {0,1}<sup>r(|z|)</sup>.
  • For each R, one clause representing f<sub>R</sub> fails.
  • Therefore, a fraction of clauses fails.

It can be concluded that if this holds for every NP-complete problem then the PCP theorem must be true.

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. <blockquote> For every ε > 0, there is a PCP-verifier M for 3-SAT that reads a random string r of length and computes query positions i<sub>r</sub>, j<sub>r</sub>, k<sub>r</sub> in the proof π and a bit b<sub>r</sub>. It accepts if and only if π(i<sub>r</sub>) ⊕ π(j<sub>r</sub>) ⊕ π(k<sub>r</sub>) = b<sub>r</sub>. </blockquote> The Verifier has completeness (1&minus;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 &minus; ε) of clauses are satisfied.
  • If z ∉ L, then for a (1/2 &minus; ε) fraction of R, 1/4 clauses are contradicted.

This is enough to prove the hardness of approximation ratio

Related problems

MAX-3SAT(B) is the restricted special case of MAX-3SAT where every variable occurs in at most B clauses. Before the PCP theorem was proven, Papadimitriou and Yannakakis showed that for some fixed constant B, this problem is MAX SNP-hard. Consequently, with the PCP theorem, it is also APX-hard. This is useful because MAX-3SAT(B) can often be used to obtain a PTAS-preserving reduction in a way that MAX-3SAT cannot. Proofs for explicit values of B include: all B ≥ 13, and all B ≥ 3 (which is best possible).

Moreover, although the decision problem 2SAT is solvable in polynomial time, MAX-2SAT(3) is also APX-hard.

The best possible approximation ratio for MAX-3SAT(B), as a function of B, is at least and at most , unless NP=RP. Some explicit bounds on the approximability constants for certain values of B are known.

Berman, Karpinski and Scott proved that for the "critical" instances of MAX-3SAT in which each literal occurs exactly twice, and each clause is exactly of size 3, the problem is approximation hard for some constant factor.

MAX-EkSAT is a parameterized version of MAX-3SAT where every clause has exactly literals, for k ≥ 3. It can be efficiently approximated with approximation ratio using ideas from coding theory.

It has been proved that random instances of MAX-3SAT can be approximated to within factor .

References

Lecture Notes from University of California, Berkeley Coding theory notes at University at Buffalo