An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New

Computational Complexity for Physicists

These lecture notes are an informal introduction to the theory of computational complexity and its links to quantum computing and statistical mechanics.Comment: references updated, reprint available from http://itp.nat.uni-magdeburg.de/~mertens/papers/complexity.shtm

Smoothed Complexity Theory

Smoothed analysis is a new way of analyzing algorithms introduced by Spielman and Teng (J. ACM, 2004). Classical methods like worst-case or average-case analysis have accompanying complexity classes, like P and AvgP, respectively. While worst-case or average-case analysis give us a means to talk about the running time of a particular algorithm, complexity classes allows us to talk about the inherent difficulty of problems. Smoothed analysis is a hybrid of worst-case and average-case analysis and compensates some of their drawbacks. Despite its success for the analysis of single algorithms and problems, there is no embedding of smoothed analysis into computational complexity theory, which is necessary to classify problems according to their intrinsic difficulty. We propose a framework for smoothed complexity theory, define the relevant classes, and prove some first hardness results (of bounded halting and tiling) and tractability results (binary optimization problems, graph coloring, satisfiability). Furthermore, we discuss extensions and shortcomings of our model and relate it to semi-random models.Comment: to be presented at MFCS 201

Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics: The Barbados Lectures

This document collects the lecture notes from my mini-course "Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics," taught at the Bellairs Research Institute of McGill University, Holetown, Barbados, February 19--23, 2017, as the 29th McGill Invitational Workshop on Computational Complexity. The goal of this mini-course is twofold: (i) to explain how complexity theory has helped illuminate several barriers in economics and game theory; and (ii) to illustrate how game-theoretic questions have led to new and interesting complexity theory, including recent several breakthroughs. It consists of two five-lecture sequences: the Solar Lectures, focusing on the communication and computational complexity of computing equilibria; and the Lunar Lectures, focusing on applications of complexity theory in game theory and economics. No background in game theory is assumed.Comment: Revised v2 from December 2019 corrects some errors in and adds some recent citations to v1 Revised v3 corrects a few typos in v