Paper detail

Lower bounds for CSP refutation by SDP hierarchies

For a $k$-ary predicate $P$, a random instance of CSP$(P)$ with $n$ variables and $m$ constraints is unsatisfiable with high probability when $m \gg n$. The natural algorithmic task in this regime is \emph{refutation}: finding a proof that a given random instance is unsatisfiable. Recent work of Allen et al. suggests that the difficulty of refuting CSP$(P)$ using an SDP is determined by a parameter $\mathrm{cmplx}(P)$, the smallest $t$ for which there does not exist a $t$-wise uniform distribution over satisfying assignments to $P$. In particular they show that random instances of CSP$(P)$ with $m \gg n^{\mathrm{cmplx(P)}/2}$ can be refuted efficiently using an SDP. In this work, we give evidence that $n^{\mathrm{cmplx}(P)/2}$ constraints are also \emph{necessary} for refutation using SDPs. Specifically, we show that if $P$ supports a $(t-1)$-wise uniform distribution over satisfying assignments, then the Sherali-Adams$_+$ and Lovász-Schrijver$_+$ SDP hierarchies cannot refute a random instance of CSP$(P)$ in polynomial time for any $m \leq n^{t/2-ε}$.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.