Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Optimal PSPACE-hardness of Approximating Set Cover Reconfiguration (2402.12645v1)

Published 20 Feb 2024 in cs.CC, cs.DM, and cs.DS

Abstract: In the Minmax Set Cover Reconfiguration problem, given a set system $\mathcal{F}$ over a universe and its two covers $\mathcal{C}\mathsf{start}$ and $\mathcal{C}\mathsf{goal}$ of size $k$, we wish to transform $\mathcal{C}\mathsf{start}$ into $\mathcal{C}\mathsf{goal}$ by repeatedly adding or removing a single set of $\mathcal{F}$ while covering the universe in any intermediate state. Then, the objective is to minimize the maximize size of any intermediate cover during transformation. We prove that Minmax Set Cover Reconfiguration and Minmax Dominating Set Reconfiguration are $\mathsf{PSPACE}$-hard to approximate within a factor of $2-\frac{1}{\operatorname{polyloglog} N}$, where $N$ is the size of the universe and the number of vertices in a graph, respectively, improving upon Ohsaka (SODA 2024) and Karthik C. S. and Manurangsi (2023). This is the first result that exhibits a sharp threshold for the approximation factor of any reconfiguration problem because both problems admit a $2$-factor approximation algorithm as per Ito, Demaine, Harvey, Papadimitriou, Sideri, Uehara, and Uno (Theor. Comput. Sci., 2011). Our proof is based on a reconfiguration analogue of the FGLSS reduction from Probabilistically Checkable Reconfiguration Proofs of Hirahara and Ohsaka (2024). We also prove that for any constant $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, Minmax Hypergraph Vertex Cover Reconfiguration on $\operatorname{poly}(\varepsilon{-1})$-uniform hypergraphs is $\mathsf{PSPACE}$-hard to approximate within a factor of $2-\varepsilon$.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (34)
  1. “Derandomized graph products” In Comput. Complex. 5, 1995, pp. 60–75
  2. “Proof Verification and the Hardness of Approximation Problems” In J. ACM 45.3, 1998, pp. 501–555
  3. Noga Alon “Explicit Expanders of Every Degree and Size” In Comb. 41.4, 2021, pp. 447–463
  4. “Probabilistic Checking of Proofs: A New Characterization of NP” In J. ACM 45.1, 1998, pp. 70–122
  5. “Shortest Reconfiguration of Colorings Under Kempe Changes” In STACS, 2020, pp. 35:1–35:14
  6. Paul Bonsma “The Complexity of Rerouting Shortest Paths” In Theor. Comput. Sci. 510, 2013, pp. 1–12
  7. Moses Charikar, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi and Howard J. Karloff “Improved Approximation Algorithms for Label Cover Problems” In Algorithmica 61.1, 2011, pp. 190–206
  8. Luis Cereceda, Jan van den Heuvel and Matthew Johnson “Finding paths between 3-colorings” In J. Graph Theory 67.1, 2011, pp. 69–82
  9. Irit Dinur “The PCP Theorem by Gap Amplification” In J. ACM 54.3, 2007, pp. 12
  10. “Analytical approach to parallel repetition” In STOC, 2014, pp. 624–633
  11. Uriel Feige “A Threshold of ln⁡n𝑛\ln nroman_ln italic_n for Approximating Set Cover” In J. ACM 45.4, 1998, pp. 634–652
  12. “Interactive Proofs and the Hardness of Approximating Cliques” In J. ACM 43.2, 1996, pp. 268–292
  13. “The Connectivity of Boolean Satisfiability: Computational and Structural Dichotomies” In SIAM J. Comput. 38.6, 2009, pp. 2330–2355
  14. Johan Håstad “Some optimal inapproximability results” In J. ACM 48.4, 2001, pp. 798–859
  15. Johan Håstad “Clique is hard to approximate within n1−εsuperscript𝑛1𝜀n^{1-\varepsilon}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT” In Acta Math. 182, 1999, pp. 105–142
  16. Robert A. Hearn and Erik D. Demaine “PSPACE-Completeness of Sliding-Block Puzzles and Other Problems through the Nondeterministic Constraint Logic Model of Computation” In Theor. Comput. Sci. 343.1-2, 2005, pp. 72–96
  17. Robert A. Hearn and Erik D. Demaine “Games, Puzzles, and Computation” A K Peters, Ltd., 2009
  18. Shlomo Hoory, Nathan Linial and Avi Wigderson “Expander graphs and their applications” In Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 43.4, 2006, pp. 439–561
  19. “Probabilistically Checkable Reconfiguration Proofs and Inapproximability of Reconfiguration Problems” In CoRR abs/2401.00474, 2024
  20. Duc A. Hoang “Combinatorial Reconfiguration”, https://reconf.wikidot.com/, 2023
  21. Takehiro Ito and Erik D. Demaine “Approximability of the subset sum reconfiguration problem” In J. Comb. Optim. 28.3, 2014, pp. 639–654
  22. “On the Complexity of Reconfiguration Problems” In Theor. Comput. Sci. 412.12-14, 2011, pp. 1054–1065
  23. “Shortest Reconfiguration of Perfect Matchings via Alternating Cycles” In SIAM J. Discret. Math. 36.2, 2022, pp. 1102–1123
  24. “On Inapproximability of Reconfiguration Problems: PSPACE-Hardness and some Tight NP-Hardness Results” In CoRR abs/2312.17140, 2023
  25. Marcin Kamiński, Paul Medvedev and Martin Milanič “Shortest Paths Between Shortest Paths” In Theor. Comput. Sci. 412.39, 2011, pp. 5205–5210
  26. “On the Hardness of Approximating Minimization Problems” In J. ACM 41.5, 1994, pp. 960–981
  27. “Shortest Reconfiguration Paths in the Solution Space of Boolean Formulas” In SIAM J. Discret. Math. 31.3, 2017, pp. 2185–2200
  28. Sidhanth Mohanty, Ryan O’Donnell and Pedro Paredes “Explicit Near-Ramanujan Graphs of Every Degree” In SIAM J. Comput. 51.3, 2021, pp. STOC20-1-STOC20–23
  29. Naomi Nishimura “Introduction to Reconfiguration” In Algorithms 11.4, 2018, pp. 52
  30. Naoto Ohsaka “Gap Preserving Reductions Between Reconfiguration Problems” In STACS, 2023, pp. 49:1–49:18
  31. Naoto Ohsaka “Gap Amplification for Reconfiguration Problems” In SODA, 2024, pp. 1345–1366
  32. “Reconfiguration Problems on Submodular Functions” In WSDM, 2022, pp. 764–774
  33. Orr Paradise “Smooth and Strong PCPs” In Comput. Complex. 30.1, 2021, pp. 1
  34. Jan van den Heuvel “The Complexity of Change” In Surveys in Combinatorics 2013 409 Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 127–160
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.