Paper detail

Breaking symmetries to rescue Sum of Squares in the case of makespan scheduling

The Sum of Squares (\sos{}) hierarchy gives an automatized technique to create a family of increasingly tight convex relaxations for binary programs. There are several problems for which a constant number of rounds of this hierarchy give integrality gaps matching the best known approximation algorithms. For many other problems, however, ad-hoc techniques give better approximation ratios than \sos{} in the worst case, as shown by corresponding lower bound instances. Notably, in many cases these instances are invariant under the action of a large permutation group. This yields the question how symmetries in a formulation degrade the performance of the relaxation obtained by the \sos{} hierarchy. In this paper, we study this for the case of the minimum makespan problem on identical machines. Our first result is to show that $Ω(n)$ rounds of \sos{} applied over the \emph{configuration linear program} yields an integrality gap of at least $1.0009$, where $n$ is the number of jobs. Our result is based on tools from representation theory of symmetric groups. Then, we consider the weaker \emph{assignment linear program} and add a well chosen set of symmetry breaking inequalities that removes a subset of the machine permutation symmetries. We show that applying $2^{\tilde{O}(1/\varepsilon^2)}$ rounds of the SA hierarchy to this stronger linear program reduces the integrality gap to $1+\varepsilon$, which yields a linear programming based polynomial time approximation scheme. Our results suggest that for this classical problem, symmetries were the main barrier preventing the \sos{}/ SA hierarchies to give relaxations of polynomial complexity with an integrality gap of~$1+\varepsilon$. We leave as an open question whether this phenomenon occurs for other symmetric problems.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.