On Quadratic Programming with a Ratio Objective

Quadratic Programming (QP) is the well-studied problem of maximizing over {-1,1} values the quadratic form \sum_{i \ne j} a_{ij} x_i x_j. QP captures many known combinatorial optimization problems, and assuming the unique games conjecture, semidefinite programming techniques give optimal approximation algorithms. We extend this body of work by initiating the study of Quadratic Programming problems where the variables take values in the domain {-1,0,1}. The specific problems we study are QP-Ratio : \max_{\{-1,0,1\}^n} \frac{\sum_{i \not = j} a_{ij} x_i x_j}{\sum x_i^2}, and Normalized QP-Ratio : \max_{\{-1,0,1\}^n} \frac{\sum_{i \not = j} a_{ij} x_i x_j}{\sum d_i x_i^2}, where d_i = \sum_j |a_{ij}| We consider an SDP relaxation obtained by adding constraints to the natural eigenvalue (or SDP) relaxation for this problem. Using this, we obtain an $\tilde{O}(n^{1/3})$ algorithm for QP-ratio. We also obtain an $\tilde{O}(n^{1/4})$ approximation for bipartite graphs, and better algorithms for special cases. As with other problems with ratio objectives (e.g. uniform sparsest cut), it seems difficult to obtain inapproximability results based on P!=NP. We give two results that indicate that QP-Ratio is hard to approximate to within any constant factor. We also give a natural distribution on instances of QP-Ratio for which an n^\epsilon approximation (for \epsilon roughly 1/10) seems out of reach of current techniques

Testing microscopic discretization

What can we say about the spectra of a collection of microscopic variables when only their coarse-grained sums are experimentally accessible? In this paper, using the tools and methodology from the study of quantum nonlocality, we develop a mathematical theory of the macroscopic fluctuations generated by ensembles of independent microscopic discrete systems. We provide algorithms to decide which multivariate gaussian distributions can be approximated by sums of finitely-valued random vectors. We study non-trivial cases where the microscopic variables have an unbounded range, as well as asymptotic scenarios with infinitely many macroscopic variables. From a foundational point of view, our results imply that bipartite gaussian states of light cannot be understood as beams of independent d-dimensional particle pairs. It is also shown that the classical description of certain macroscopic optical experiments, as opposed to the quantum one, requires variables with infinite cardinality spectra.Comment: Proof of strong NP-hardness. Connection with random walks. New asymptotic results. Numerous typos correcte

Sum of squares lower bounds for refuting any CSP

Let $P:\{0,1\}^k \to \{0,1\}$ be a nontrivial $k$-ary predicate. Consider a random instance of the constraint satisfaction problem $\mathrm{CSP}(P)$ on $n$ variables with $\Delta n$ constraints, each being $P$ applied to $k$ randomly chosen literals. Provided the constraint density satisfies $\Delta \gg 1$, such an instance is unsatisfiable with high probability. The \emph{refutation} problem is to efficiently find a proof of unsatisfiability. We show that whenever the predicate $P$ supports a $t$-\emph{wise uniform} probability distribution on its satisfying assignments, the sum of squares (SOS) algorithm of degree $d = \Theta(\frac{n}{\Delta^{2/(t-1)} \log \Delta})$ (which runs in time $n^{O(d)}$) \emph{cannot} refute a random instance of $\mathrm{CSP}(P)$. In particular, the polynomial-time SOS algorithm requires $\widetilde{\Omega}(n^{(t+1)/2})$ constraints to refute random instances of CSP$(P)$ when $P$ supports a $t$-wise uniform distribution on its satisfying assignments. Together with recent work of Lee et al. [LRS15], our result also implies that \emph{any} polynomial-size semidefinite programming relaxation for refutation requires at least $\widetilde{\Omega}(n^{(t+1)/2})$ constraints. Our results (which also extend with no change to CSPs over larger alphabets) subsume all previously known lower bounds for semialgebraic refutation of random CSPs. For every constraint predicate~$P$, they give a three-way hardness tradeoff between the density of constraints, the SOS degree (hence running time), and the strength of the refutation. By recent algorithmic results of Allen et al. [AOW15] and Raghavendra et al. [RRS16], this full three-way tradeoff is \emph{tight}, up to lower-order factors.Comment: 39 pages, 1 figur