Paper detail

Algorithmic Obstructions in the Random Number Partitioning Problem

We consider the algorithmic problem of finding a near-optimal solution for the number partitioning problem (NPP). The NPP appears in many applications, including the design of randomized controlled trials, multiprocessor scheduling, and cryptography; and is also of theoretical significance. It possesses a so-called statistical-to-computational gap: when its input $X$ has distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,I_n)$, its optimal value is $Θ(\sqrt{n}2^{-n})$ w.h.p.; whereas the best polynomial-time algorithm achieves an objective value of only $2^{-Θ(\log^2 n)}$, w.h.p. In this paper, we initiate the study of the nature of this gap. Inspired by insights from statistical physics, we study the landscape of NPP and establish the presence of the Overlap Gap Property (OGP), an intricate geometric property which is known to be a rigorous evidence of an algorithmic hardness for large classes of algorithms. By leveraging the OGP, we establish that (a) any sufficiently stable algorithm, appropriately defined, fails to find a near-optimal solution with energy below $2^{-ω(n \log^{-1/5} n)}$; and (b) a very natural MCMC dynamics fails to find near-optimal solutions. Our simulations suggest that the state of the art algorithm achieving $2^{-Θ(\log^2 n)}$ is indeed stable, but formally verifying this is left as an open problem. OGP regards the overlap structure of $m-$tuples of solutions achieving a certain objective value. When $m$ is constant we prove the presence of OGP in the regime $2^{-Θ(n)}$, and the absence of it in the regime $2^{-o(n)}$. Interestingly, though, by considering overlaps with growing values of $m$ we prove the presence of the OGP up to the level $2^{-ω(\sqrt{n\log n})}$. Our proof of the failure of stable algorithms at values $2^{-ω(n \log^{-1/5} n)}$ employs methods from Ramsey Theory from the extremal combinatorics, and is of independent interest.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.