\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amssymb}

\begin{document}
\input{preamble.tex}
\lecture{20}{April 20, 2005}{Madhu Sudan}{Toby Schachman}

\section{Today}

\begin{itemize}
\item We introduce Approximability and Optimization and their relationship with PCP.
\item We begin Dinur's new proof (published two days ago!) of the PCP theorem. The proof is inspired
by previous papers by Dinur-Reingold. Recall the PCP theorem: ${\rm NP} \subseteq {\rm PCP}[O(log (n)),O(1)]$.
\end{itemize}

\section{Approximability and Optimization}

Consider the optimization problem of coloring a given graph with as few colors as possible. We know this problem is NP-hard (because 3-coloring a 3-colorable graph is NP-hard), but what about nearly-optimal colorings? For example, if we are given that a graph is $k$-colorable, is there a way to color the graph with $k+1$ colors in polynomial time? We know we can always color planar graphs with $k+1$ colors (because we have an algorithm for 4-coloring planar graphs) but it is open what we can do with generalized graphs. Approximability is the study of finding such near-optimal solutions.

Formally, a polynomial time algorithm $A$ approximates a problem to within $\alpha(\cdot)$ if for any instance $x$, $A(x)$ produces a solution whose ${\rm Cost} \leq \alpha(n) {\rm OPT}(x)$ where ${\rm OPT}(x)$ is the cost of the optimal solution and $\alpha(n) > 1$. Alternatively, if we are trying to maximize a quantity, we use ${\rm Profit} \geq {\rm OPT}(x)/\alpha(n)$.

For example, planar coloring has a $4/3$-approximating algorithm. For general coloring, the best known result for 3-colorable graphs is that we can color a 3-colorable graph with $n^{3/14}$ colors [Blum, Karger].

How would one prove that this is the best result, in other words that there is no polynomial time algorithm that can always color a 3-colorable graph with less than $n^(3/4)$ colors? What would a hardness reduction look like?

Well, we could give a transformation which maps 3cnf formula $\phi$ to graph $G_\phi$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi \in {\rm SAT} \rightarrow G_\phi$ is 3-colorable
\item $\phi \not\in {\rm SAT} \rightarrow G_\phi$ is not k-colorable for $k<n^{3/14}$
\end{itemize}
If we had such a transformation, then we'd know that either we have the best algorithm or P=NP. Say we had some better algorithm $A'$. To see if $\phi$ is satisfiable we'd just use the transformation to get $G_\phi$ and then color $G_\phi$ with $A'$ and see if we could do it with less than $n^{3/14}$ colors. If the algorithm worked, we'd know that $\phi$ is satisfiable. We will be using a reduction like this to show the equivalence of the PCP theorem and the optimization problem MAX-SAT.

\section{MAX-SAT}

We define MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ to be an optimization problem where $k$ is a positive integer and $\Sigma$ is a finite set (an alphabet). An instance of MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ consists of variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ taking values in $\Sigma$ and constraints $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ where $C_j$ is a constraint on up to $k$ variables. The goal is to find an assignment for $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ that maximizes the number of satisfied constraints. Notice that constraints can be defined arbitrarily (ie: "truth-table" style) as long as they only depend on at most $k$ variables.

MAX-SAT is NP-hard for most choices of $k$ and $\Sigma$. For example, MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1,2\}$ is as hard as the 3-colorable optimization problem defined above because we can let each vertex be a variable and 0, 1, and 2 be the colors and then translate the graph into a set of constraints (each edge is a not-equal constraint on two variables). Another example, MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1\}$ is as hard as the optimization problem MAX-CUT, in which the goal is to partition a graph into two groups so as to maximize the number of edges that are "cut" (edges that connect two vertices in separate groups). Let each vertex correspond to a vertex and each edge connecting $v_i$ and $v_j$ is represented by the constraint $x_i \oplus x_j = 1$.

Dinur proves that $\alpha$-approximating MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ is NP-hard for satisfiable instances.

\section{PCP and MAX-SAT}

We will show that the PCP theorem is equivalent to Dinur's theorem. First we introduce notation:

Given $\psi$, an instance of a MAX-SAT problem, and $\sigma$, an assignment of the variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, we say
$$
{\rm UNSAT}_\sigma(\psi) = \mbox{ fraction of constraints left unsatisfied by } \psi
$$
and
$$
{\rm UNSAT}(\psi) = \min_\sigma \{{\rm UNSAT}_\sigma(\psi)\}
$$

\begin{itemize}
\item Claim 1: If MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ is hard to approximate within $\alpha$ then ${\rm NP} \subset {\rm PCP}[O(log n), O(1)]$. That is, if there exists a transform T which transforms a 3cnf-formula to an instance of MAX-SAT such that
$$
\phi \in {\rm SAT} \to {\rm UNSAT}(T(\phi))=0
$$
and
$$
\phi \not\in {\rm SAT} \to {\rm UNSAT}(\phi) \geq 1-1/\alpha
$$
then ${\rm NP} \subset {\rm PCP}[O(log(n)), O(1)]$

\item Proof: Verifier transforms NP problem to Max SAT instance by computing $\psi = T(\phi)$ and expects as proof an assignment to the variables. Verifier then picks a random constraint, $C_j$ in $\psi$. Notice that if $\phi \not\in {\rm SAT}$ then there is a $1-1/\alpha$ chance that $C_j$ will not be met. The verifier reads the $k$ elements that $C_j$ depends on and verifies that this assignment meets $C_j$. Thus it requires $k \log |\Sigma|$ queries and $O(\log n)$ random bits. Notice if $\phi \in {\rm SAT}$ we accept with probability 1 and if $\phi \not\in {\rm SAT}$ then we accept with probability less than $1/\alpha$.

\item Claim 2: The converse, if ${\rm NP} \subset {\rm PCP}[O(\log n), O(1)]$ then $\alpha$-approximating MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1\}$ is hard.

\item Proof: Let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ denote the bits of the proof. Let there be $m=2^{O(\log n)}$ constraints $C_1,\ldots,C_m$. Notice that $m$ is the number of distinct random strings that could be used by the verifier. Let $C_j$ denote the condition that leads to acceptance by the verifier on the $j^th$ random string. Notice that $C_j$ depends on only $q$ variables, where $q$ is the number of queries that the verifier needs. Thus we have an instance of MAX $q{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1\}$.

\end{itemize}

\section{Dinur's Theorem}

Theorem [Dinur 2005]: For all $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a transformation T' transforming 3cnf formulae to MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ such that
$$
\phi \in {\rm SAT} \to {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)=0
$$
and
$$
\phi \not\in {\rm SAT} \to {\rm UNSAT}(T'(\phi)) \geq \epsilon
$$
Notice by the above claims this is equivalent to the PCP theorem. We prove the theorem with a main lemma which is then proved by two sub-lemmas.

\section{Main Lemma}

For some constant $\Sigma$, $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a transform T transforming MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ instances to MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ preserving satisfiability such that
$$
{\rm UNSAT}(T(\phi)) \geq \min\{\epsilon,2 {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)\}
$$
and further $|T(\phi)|$ is $O(|\phi|)$.

The theorem follows from this lemma. Start by transforming $\phi$ to $T_0(\phi)$, and instance of MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ such that $T_0(\phi)$ is satisfiable if and only if $\phi$ is satisfiable. Now apply T to $T_0(\phi)$ a logarithmic number of times so that UNSAT is sufficiently low and $|T'(\phi)|$ is $O(n \log(n))$.

We prove this main lemma from two sub-lemmas.

\section{Lemma 1: Amplification}

For every $\beta$ and $\Sigma$ there exists a $l$ and a transform $T_1$ from MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ to MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma^l$ preserving satisfiability such that
$$
{\rm UNSAT}(T_1(\phi)) \geq \beta \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)
$$
and further $|T_1(\phi)| =  O(|\phi|)$. 

Notice that this lemma improves soundness but at the expense of a larger alphabet. We will defer the proof of this lemma until we cover derandomization techniques.

\section{Lemma 2: Alphabet Reduction}

There exists alphabet $\Sigma$ and constant $c$ such that for every finite alphabet $\Gamma$ there is a transform $T_2$ from MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Gamma$ to MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Sigma$ preserving satisfiability and such that
$$
{\rm UNSAT}(T_2(\phi)) \geq 1/c \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)
$$
Furthermore $|T_2(\phi)| = O(|\phi|)$. Notice that this lemma decreases soundness but also decreases the alphabet size. We can combine it with lemma 1 to prove the main lemma.

\section{Main Lemma from Sub-Lemmas}

\begin{itemize}
\item Set $\Sigma$ as in Lemma 2.
\item Set $\beta = 2c$
\item Set $\Gamma$ to $\Sigma^l$ from Lemma 1.
\item Consider the transform $T = T_2 \circ T_1$. $T$ is linear sized, polynomial time, and preserves satisfiability. Furthermore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\rm UNSAT}(T(\phi)) & = & {\rm UNSAT}(T_2(T_1(\phi))) \\
	& \geq & 1/c \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(T_1(\phi)) \\
	& \geq & \beta/c \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(\phi) \\
	& = & 2 \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{itemize}

\section{Proof Outline for Lemma 2}
We ended with a proof outline of lemma 2, which we will prove next class. We break lemma 2 down into two more lemmas:

\begin{itemize}
\item Lemma 2a: There exists constants $k$ and $c_a$ such that for every finite $\Gamma$, there is a transform $T_{2a}$ from MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\Gamma$ to MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1\}$ preserving satisfiability such that
$$
{\rm UNSAT}(T_{2a}(\phi)) \geq 1/{c_a} \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)
$$
and further, $T_{2a}$ is linear.
\item Lemma 2b: For every $k$ there is a transform $T_{2b}$ MAX $k{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1\}$ to MAX $2{\rm -SAT-}\{0,1\}^k$ such that
$$
{\rm UNSAT}(T_{2b}(\phi)) \geq 1/k \cdot {\rm UNSAT}(\phi)
$$
and further, $T_{2b}$ is linear and preserves satisfiability. The proof of this lemma is analogous to reducing oracle interactive proofs to 2-prover interactive proofs.
\end{itemize}


\end{document}
