Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js
pdf icon
Volume 9 (2013) Article 22 pp. 685-702
Hamming Approximation of NP Witnesses
Received: August 13, 2012
Revised: April 24, 2013
Published: August 4, 2013
Download article from ToC site:
[PDF (293K)] [PS (1036K)] [Source ZIP]
Keywords: complexity theory, inapproximability, approximation algorithms, Hamming distance
ACM Classification: F.1.3
AMS Classification: 68Q17

Abstract: [Plain Text Version]

Given a satisfiable 3-SAT formula, how hard is it to find an assignment to the variables that has Hamming distance at most n/2 to a satisfying assignment? More generally, consider any polynomial-time verifier for any NP-complete language. A d(n)-Hamming-approximation algorithm for the verifier is one that, given any member x of the language, outputs in polynomial time a string a with Hamming distance at most d(n) to some witness w, where (x,w) is accepted by the verifier. Previous results have shown that, if P  NP, every NP-complete language has a verifier for which there is no (n/2n2/3+δ)-Hamming-approximation algorithm, for various constants δ0.

Our main result is that, if P  NP, then every paddable NP-complete language has a verifier that admits no (n/2+O(nlogn))-Hamming-approximation algorithm. That is, one can't get even half the bits right. We also consider natural verifiers for various well-known NP-complete problems. They do have n/2-Hamming-approximation algorithms, but, if P  NP, have no (n/2nϵ)-Hamming-approximation algorithms for any constant ϵ>0.

We show similar results for randomized algorithms.