Inapproximability of Constraint Satisfaction Problems I
summary
Claim: it is NP‑hard to beat 7/8 hardness for MAX‑3SAT. Proof outline: reduction from satisfiability via the PCP theorem, then parallel repetition to get a Label Cover instance, encode labels with the long code, and run a three‑bit testing gadget (with folding) that yields a MAX‑3‑LIN/MAX‑3‑SAT instance whose completeness is near 1 and whose soundness forces only the random assignment ratio. Key technical step is the soundness lemma extracting a labeling from any high‑accepting proof.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (6)
- 0:00Start
- 1:47A Generic Constraint Satisfaction Problem
- 3:29The Approximation Ratio
- 21:31The Pcp Theorem
- 22:56Pcp Theorem
- 41:35Cherry Parallel Game
related talks
31mNew Unconditional Lower Bounds for Algorithms and Enumeration Problems
27mOn the Subexponential Time Complexity of the CSP
33mLower Bounds for Subexponential Parameterized Complexity of Minimum Fill-in and Related Problems
26mLower Bounds on the Running Time for Scheduling and Packing Problems
58mLower Bound Issues in Computational Social Choice
30mLower Bound Results for Hard Problems Related to Finite Automata
29mSubexponential Parameterized Complexity of Completion Problems: Survey of the Upper Bounds
33mSub-exponential Approximation Schemes for CSPs: from Dense to Almost Sparse
